Hi Macallan.  It was good to meet you at the shoot.Ooh! Cute!  Yes, I suppose you can say that.  What percentage of the electorate believes that 10-year-olds can "consent" to "sexual abuse?" Hmm?Absolutely.  However there isn't anything near 50% of the population that agrees with the defrauders, is there?Very good comparison.  (Remember, please, that the U.S. was hardly the first nation to practice slavery, and is far from the last.)  If you look at it, you'll see that position was actually held by considerably less than 50% of the population.  However those who supported "states rights" over "Federalism" supported those who held blacks as less than human.  The question was so violently argued that we had a civil war over it.  Are you suggesting that we should arm up and fight it out over abortion?  We've already answered the question as to whether states in disagreement with Federal law can secede from the union.

So, what do you suggest?

The usual method for resolving issues having been abrogated (voting), what other choice is there?  No wonder some have turned to violence.  Now, free speech is being made criminal when it interferes with the right of abortion.

The political process is not functioning, becuase oligarchs have made the decision for us.  There is no other outlet.

Political campaigns, fund raising, get out the vote campaigns, raising awareness, and, finally, voting.

Those are my suggestions on how to solve problems in a republic.

Hello, Eric Rudolph...  How are you these days?

Lovely...  [rolleyes]

I know it's not polite to answer a question with a question, but what makes the NRA more right than HCI?



Thanks for the correction. My fingers don't always type what my brian teels ti tooo. There are other millions of women that have the same "moral opinion" as I do. I'm not interested in other women's opinions, I'm interested in your opinion.



I guess that my point would be to draw the line at sexual intercourse. If a woman chooses to have intercourse and gets pregnant, she and the father have an oblation to the potential human being do everything necessary to facilitate a healthy child. I believe that the termination of that potential child is wrong and should be deemed so by society.



This is my first time. I think that we have done a good job of not devolving into a religious argument.

The_Macallan
Not all people see the unborn fetus as a person.  Can't exist by itself, not fully developed, etc....  The arguments on both sides are endless, and thus reasonable minds can differ.  So once again you want to create a law to make those who disagree with you have to obey "the rules" as you see it.

As with most people using emotional arguments, you are attempting to simplify issues that are inherently complex.  You make the assumption that that all people should believe that a fetus should be treated as a human being, and ending with the typical emotional rhetoric.  "Do it for the children" "it just like slavery".  I think most people in the WORLD have come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, reasonable minds tend to think the same way on that subject.  Thus attempting correlate that issue with the status that should be given to a fetus is misguided.

What's two feet tall and 5 feet wide and can't fit through the doorway?






A baby with a javelin through its skull!

Well, there is some truth to that.  For example, read the [i]U.S. v. Cruikshank[/i] decision in regards to the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court, rightly or wrongly, is affected by public opinion.  If there was sufficient public opinion to A) outlaw abortion by amendment or B) rewrite the Second Amendment to say "LEAVE OUR GUNS ALONE!" then they would probably be affected by the public opinion that supported those amendments.I cannot speak to that.  I'm not all that well versed in the legal history of abortion.  I always understood it to be a privacy question, not a "due process" question.Well, they have.  At some point in the future they may redraw the line.  I think they [i]should[/i] redraw the line, because [u]after[/u] [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] they decided that "the mother's health" could mean "the mother's possible happiness" and opened the door to late-term abortion at will.  But nothing short of an amendment or a new SCOTUS decision is going to change the current law.We're discussing here a difference between the way things [i]ought[/i] to be and the way things actually [i]are[/i].  After the Civil War the power shifted to the Federal side.  The 14th Amendment greatly expanded federal oversight of the states.  Yes, much of what you list is still the purview of the states, but the Federal government is the holy oracle of what are and are not "rights" and what restrictions the states may put upon them. (Except when it comes to the Second, since SCOTUS has declined to "incorporate" the Second Amendment under the 14th.)  That's the way it is.Yes, essentially it did.  For all practical purposes it bowed to a "liberal" opinion and made a decision it probably should not have made.  That is one of the dangers of the judicial system the Founding Fathers set up.  I beleive Jefferson commented on it.  We run the risk of "activist" courts, both liberal and conservative.  By having nine Justices it was hoped to keep that activism in check, but...  However, the decision [i]was[/i] made, just as the [i]Miller[/i] decision was made.  We can either accept that idea and work within the system of government we have (flawed, as are all governments) or we can take up arms and try to overthrow it.  

Warning.  I shoot back.I try to be a realist.  Human beings wrote the Constitution, human beings live under the Constitution, and human beings will always try to change the world so it's more comfortable to them.  I think a lot of bad law is out there, unreviewed by the Supreme Court.  I think the Supreme Court (as it has evidenced) is capable of some pretty bad mistakes.  I think they overreached in [i]Roe v. Wade[/i], but I think [i]that[/i] decision wasn't wrong.

Uh, whos god(s)?  Mine say it is perfectly ok for a woman to have an abortion.

It's so simple for all you antis isn't it. You think that you are so morally superior that you would never imagine that you or your loved one would ever "choose" an abortion, and I hope for your sake that you never go through what my wife and I went through.

Imagine, life is good, your wife is pregnant with your second child, nothing but love and happiness in your life. Til you get the call and your wifes' doctor, he needs to see both of you in his office immediately. You see, the last tests showed that the baby is horribly disfigured and the stomach is inside out and the eyes have not formed properly and says that you need an abortion. That's when our happy little world blew up. We get 2nd and 3rd opinions and they all say the same thing. So after many nights of soul wrenching, you make the call and schedule the abortion and clear it with the medical insurance. Then the day comes and I get an early morning call from my insurance stating they don't cover abortions in any case whatsoever, they choose now to tell me this? Great, so I sell a few guns, empty my accounts, get cash on credit cards and come up the $3500 for the abortion. We go to the surgical center and now what, the place is mobbed with antis blocking the door and yelling things like "baby killer". The wife is already an emotional wreak but with this she just loses it. I start pushing our way through the mob of antis til one of the braver ones grabs my wife by the arm yells murderer in her face and spits in her face. That was it, my button was pushed, I lost control. Somehow over the course of 5-6 seconds (according to police report) I broke this guys' jaw, both cheek bones, an eye socket, his nose, and his right wrist. Then I got off him and led my wife into the building and handed her off to the staff. Then I sat and waited. An ambulance and many police cars showed up a few minutes later and I was arrested. My wife bailed me out the next day after raising funds from friends and family. To make a long story a bit shorter, eventually all charges were dropped but I was sued in civil court but won.

Many years later we still have not tried to have another child, the abortion still haunts us and when that fetus died, a large part of me and the wife died with it. I doubt we will have any more children.

You see, abortion is not just about the stupid slut that uses abortion because she does not want kids, sometimes it's about medical need and what is best for the family. Stand in the way of my wife and medical need and I will beat you to death with my bare hands if need be.

Amen, brotha Hellraiser!

The_reject might want to repent.....

I don't see any MORE LEGISLATION about the issue...  

"WE" have just legalized MURDER for a certain group...


[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid37/p9843dde4b347d4b201757e3bbab3202e/fd185f4a.gif[/img]

HMMMM when is the point that murder is wrong????   Well this is 2 months....perhaps we want to say anyone with say feet are included....or perhas eyes.... If you haven't developed eyes yet, you don't deserve status as a living being...

SAVE THE WHALES AND KILL THE BABIES

Too many folks see every issue as an attack on their guns....

I have no confidence in that.  In California, they had a problem with their Supreme Court flagrantly ignoring the law.  The law would be changed to be more specific.  The court ignored it.  Then they passed more laws, which mentioned the bad decisions by name and specifically overruled them.  The courts interpreted there way out of that.

Finally, some new judges got appointed who could read.  That was the only way to solve the problem.

In Utah, our state had its own little 2nd amendment.  The state Supreme Court adopted the "collective" interpretation and ignored it.  Fine, the people amended the constitution to be more specific.

The court still ignores it.  My state will not have real protection of RKBA until we have new judges who can read.

Sure, but that does not make it right.  As you know, the Supreme Court has made some horrible decisions.

We all know how things are.  I think we are discussing only how they ought to be.  Just because some things are done a certain way right now, that is not a good excuse to shrug our shoulders and accept the present poor state of affairs.

Being a realist is not an excuse to ignore principles.

Or we can get right-thinking judges appointed who understand how to read.  I do not think the questions "Do individuals have a right to bear arms" or "Does the constitution protect a woman's right to an abortion" requires a revolution.  We already had a revolution over RKBA and federal/state issue:  the result was the constitution.  We just need some judges who are literate.

Is that a threat or a joke?

As I stated above, IMHO violence is more likely because the political process has been foreclosed and distorted.  There is no release valve, other than internet discussion forums of course.

Human being wrote it, but the constituion is a text that does have objective meaning.  Sure, it is possible to argue around the edges (what is a "reasonable" search?), but most of the things in it are pretty clear.  Like the fact that I should be able to buy an M16A2 and that abortion is not mentioned at all.

If the constitution changes, without bothering to amend it, it means nothing.  If that is the case, not only is there no right to an abortion, there are no rights at all.

They were wrong, but it was right?

If you have not read it, you would be surprised by how limited the decision really is.  But as it has no foundation in the text of the constitution, every decisions steadily expanded the right until we finally get "abortion upon demand."

What did I tell ya?  A big ol' can of worms you opened up there.  The reject your baby jokes weren't as bad as one I was told once, but I'm not gonna say it here, unless, well never mind.

And no offense to some of you who think it's still wrong in a case of incest are plain ol' sick.  Have you ever seen some, maybe not all but some kids from incest?  When I was in Missouri I saw a family with 5 kids, all born to a brother and sister, not one of these kids was normal.  One ear, half an arm, no leg, looked like sloth from the goonies, etc.  oh but they're alive right and thankful every day for the existance they have.

Hellraiser:

Thanks for telling your story.  I think that stories like yours are often forgotten in this argument.  Please accept my condolences for both you and your wife, and let me say I'm glad to see that the justice system worked in your case.

Well, we've got the Second Amendment to the Constitution, 4 million NRA members, and about 25% of the population owns guns.  HCI has how many people on its side?Yes, that's a marvelous fantasy, isn't it?  If all who engaged in sexual intercourse were responsible, mature adults, we wouldn't have this problem, would we?  Or would we?  It sounds almost like you advocate sexual intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation.  Welcome to the real world.  Kids have sex.  Idiots have sex.  Irresponsible people have sex.  People have sex in order to procreate, and sometimes the result [i]isn't[/i] a healthy child.  Then what?

I think it's entirely possible (and right) for society to deem abortion wrong without making it illegal.  I think society should deem drug abuse wrong, too.

You have my sincere apology for starting a thread which caused you such pain.

Mmmmmmmmm! Looks tasty! Tartar or Red Sauce.....

Repent what?  And to whom?

Not likely.

Well, there is ONE more that I know, but I refuse to post here, as it is beyond the realms of good taste.  It has no place here, nor in any discussion about abortion where deep emotions and personal experiences are shared.

I [b]DO[/b] have [b]SOME[/b] scruples.

 Does it have to do with a rock?  *looks both ways*

1. A religious view of conception should have no bearing on lawmaking in a society wherein a clear separation of church and state has been established with the freedom of religion being absolute. Religion is subjective and policy established by using religion as a guideline is no better than the Taliban imposing Shari'a Law. There's no difference because it's just one group's interpretation being imposed on everyone. Religious freedom means that if I don't believe in a Christian God and don't believe life begins at conception, then I should not be subjected to a law which binds my actions when that law is passed with religious motivations. Personally, I refuse to be subjected to someone elses religion against my will. I will fight to the death to protect my Constitutional freedom of religion (or choice to not have one).

2. Most people who are against abortion are also in support of the death penalty. I realize the argument that an innocent "baby" is not a hardened criminal. But ending life is ending life. If life is absolutely sacred to the point of playing God and overruling a mother's decisions to terminate her pregnancy, then it is equally sacred to refrain from executing someone. I have never understood this philosophical paradox because they are ultimately in contradiction to each other.

3. The ultimate paradox is represented by the absolute extremist idiots who shoot and kill doctors because they think the doctors are committing murder. Truthfully, I have witnessed a similar, blind fanatacism in anti-abortionists equal that of anti-gunners.

4. Men have no business involving themselves in the issue to begin with. Again, I liken this to Taliban rule wherein a man dictates morality and policy to a woman. A man ultimately can never keep a woman from aborting her baby, nor can he force her to abort it. It's a woman's issue, and frankly, men need to realize this fact and find their place (meaning butt the fuck out).

Nope.  We must be thinking of different jokes.

Well you passed the relm of good taste much earlier (seems like maybe the blender was the first one), but then again that "good taste" thing is always relative...

The number of people who believe a certain thing makes it correct? I remember that lone man standing in front of the Chinese tank in Teth-a-min (sp?) square. That was one man against a government. But I still think he was right.




The purpose of sexual intercourse IS procreation. When someone has intercourse they run the risk of conception. When that happens, they have a responsibility to the life they created. Doing what is right is not a fantasy. It may be difficult but doing the correct and moral thing will lead to better results in the long run.



Yes. But our liberal tendances over the past 30 years has done nothing but ingrained irresponsibility. You don't have to take responsibility for your actions because you can have an abortion of convenience.



A difficult question. I would leave that to the doctors. If there is a medical necessity, abortion should be an option. I never said it shouldn't. My problem is abortion on demand for convenience.



I am not arguing for the abolition of abortion. I have stated exceptions in my previous post. I am arguing against abortion on demand for convenience should not be legal.

Ow!  Stop it!  You're hurting me!  [rolleyes]

You said


If that was the truth, it wouldn't be pleasureable, it's just a way to procreate.
 

Sorry again you should've put "People THAT have sex in order to procreate."  
I mean, every time I have sex it's not to procreate.
Sorry just nit-picking...LOL!

Vel,

I think you read my post before I fixed the "quotes".



Intercourse is pleasurable for the express purpose of facilitating procreation. [:)]

This is why I love these arguments - they require you to exercise the gray matter.  I don't get much of that on AR15.com because my opinions are largely in the majority here.  It's also why I enjoyed posting on DU - some of them are not stupid.

No, the number of people who believe something does not make it correct.  It makes it [i]socially acceptable[/i].  HCI is wrong because they deny the fundamental right to self-protection (no matter how much they protest otherwise.)  They are also in the minority.  In many societies the opinions they hold are in the majority - and self-defense is not socially acceptable, however morally right it is.  I stand corrected - the number of people argument was an inappropriate answer to your question.And here's the core of the argument - yes, we pass laws based on what we believe is morally correct, but when the morals [i]change[/i] [b]new[/b] laws won't change the morals [b]back[/b] - and that seems to be what you want to do.  It doesn't work.See above.I understand that, but the fact remains that morality [i]has[/i] shifted, and the law has changed.  You can argue which one changed first, but both have changed.  Reversing the law won't reverse the moral change.Again, see above.

So if you are religious, you do not get to vote on the issue?

How is that protecting people's freedom to exercise their religion?
It is all about choice and consequences.  The woman has sex, she has a baby.  The murdered murders, he gets killed.

What did the fetus do to get the death penalty?

To be matched only by the pro-choice fanatics an Christian haters.

Did you forget that we can not prohibit people from having opinions or from voting just because of their sex?  I swear I read that in the constitution someplace.  It seems like you are advocating Taliban rule, just in reverse.

So if abortion has nothing to do with men, how exactly did that woman get pregnant?

If this whole abortion thing is just a women's issue, lets vote on it.  After all, they are more than 50% of the voters so they should be able to do whatever they want on the issue.

See, here is the problem.  Abortion was legal in some states and illegal in others.  Were morals changing?  Maybe some.  Then the supreme court made abortion legal nationwide.  Since then, have morals changed?  Maybe.  In some places, they have not.  Abortion would be illegal tomorrow in my state (for good or ill) if the Supreme Oligarchy got its nose out of our business.  So if, as you argue, morals should be reflected in the law, rather than trying to change morals, THAT IS NOT HAPPENING.  The law is only relfecting the desires of the oligarchy, nor any sort of public morality.

Face it, if the shoe were on the other foot and the judges were a little more literal, the pro-choice folks WOULD NOT be able to pass a constitutional amendment protecting their position.  Roe v. Wade is not the choice of the people or of public morality.  It is the choice of 9 judges and that's it.

Hell, this is a good point.  While MrP might be trying to lead public morality with a new law, the Supreme Court did worse by doing by the same thing using dictatorial means.

I can see your point on the death penalty. I'm not a fanatical supporter of the death penalty, but then again I wouldn't find myself heartbroken if they shot for instance those 2 peaceful muslim snipers in the head and burried them in pigskin...for the detterent value; my religious beliefs  say that it is OK(there is scripture if anyone wants to go there, I can find it)but some think it's playing God...

But we do have that whole separation of church and state thing to[:D] My main concern for violent criminals is that they not be allowed to harm anyone else.

What I don't understand is the whole "womans right" thing... It (under usual circumstances) takes 2 to have sex... so it would seem to tme that both have a part in it.

I assume (easy now tell me if I'm wrong) that before they made it legal, it was already included under murder....Why else woudl it be considered murder if a non-mother killed an unborn child????

It's murder plain and simple, look at that picture i posted, that's a living being!  

I remember seeing my wifes ultrasound, ultra early (just 4-5 weeks IIRC very early either way).  That's actually when we found out, anyways just a peanut looking thing in the "video snow"  but there was a very visible heart beating...

It wasn't just a peanut looking thing, it was a living being... MY BOY.

As far as I'm concerned if it isn't self defense(life threatening pregnancy) it's murder.  

I can't just shoot anyone becasue it would make my life more convinient...Why shold they be able to kill defenseless children???

Where it gets sticky (logically sticky) is rape victims... aside from the traumatic experience...the kid may not be a health risk to the mother, but how is she suppose to carry a kid to term if raped???  I'm sure there are a few that might be able to carry and put up for adoption, and even those who could carry and raise a kid, but I have to say in that instance, it should be up to the mother...

Actually, I don't think that there has been that much of a change. The SCOUS ruled that a woman's health was enough to justify the abortion. That has been interpreted as the woman's happiness is enough to justify abortion on demand. I think the morals of the average American have not changed that much.

As I have stated before, I grew up pro-choice. As an adult I have reviewed the factors and become pro-life. IMO the vast majority of Americans could be swayed either way. Unfortunately, only one side of the issue is presented in the media. Those that don't agree with abortion are linked to the wackos who kill doctors.

If a rational, compassionate, and articulate counter view were presented to the American people, I believe the majority of Americans would believe that abortion is WRONG.

Ok, I understand your point.  The Supreme Court declared that women had a RIGHT to abortion protected under the Constitution, though it was not mentioned anywhere in that document.  Your position is that they had no power to do so, and it was overreaching their Constitutionally defined powers.  You may very well be correct.  But a lot of women (who are the ones most directly affected by this decision, since they're the ones who have the plumbing) are extremely relieved.  These women now have to make a [i]moral choice[/i] on whether or not to have an abortion, should they feel the [i]need[/i].  They no longer have the added burden of deciding if the [i]legal[/i] risk is worth it.

SCOTUS [i]expanded[/i] the rights of these women.  I can justify this to myself by repeating the Ninth Amendment:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  Abortion was legal in some states and not in others.  Illegal abortion was viewed as a bigger problem-maker than could be justified.  SCOTUS decided that one of the non-enumerated rights was the right of a woman to determine whether or not she [i]had[/i] to be pregnant.  It was another logical step away from the legal chattel position women had been in when the Constitution was written.

[i]"The law is only relfecting the desires of the oligarchy?"[/i]  Not quite.  You disagree with that ruling.  About half of the current population disagrees with you.  Ain't democracy wunnerful?No?  New shoe, new foot:  Anti-abortion forces couldn't get an anti-abortion amendment passed, either.  If you can get an anti-abortion SCOTUS seated, then once again they can overreach their power and [i]contract[/i] the rights of these women.  But don't expect the morals to change.  It might not have been "the choice of the people or of public morality" THEN, but it certainly seems to have significant support NOW.

Sh_t!

I've been thinking of bringing up the Abortion topic for a few weeks as it has bee a while.

Now I'm 4 pages behind and don't have time to read all those comments.

In short, my vote is pro life.

All other views are convenient self serving cop-outs. Period.

Lets not get caught up in the verbiage. Lets not get sidetracked by someone's rights nor base such an important issue to the SCOTUS. (they legalized slavery remember?) And there is no reason to make this a religious issue either.

Bottom line, it is wrong.

If ANYTHING in this world CAN be wrong, abortion is wrong.

Once we touch the heart of this issue, as well as the heart of every single person on this planet, and can acknowledge that point, we start from there and figure out what to do next.

What is that?

I dunno. Enacting laws is not the answer.

Its more important to have people WANT to do something.

Right now, people want to have unprotected sex, get pregnant, don't want to take responsibility, and have abortions.

This decision needs to start in people's hearts where the answer is obvious. And then go from there...

--LS

I have to disagree. As someone who opposes abortion but supports the death penalty, I find the positions to be wholly separate. I oppose the registration of guns but support the registration of cars. Just because it's about registration does not mean that I have to support all registration efforts. The same is true with abortion and the death penalty.

I oppose abortion on grounds of personal reasonability. It is a woman's (and man's) personal reasonability to accept the consequences of their actions. This includes ensuring the life they created has the potential to become human.



This is exactly what the media does to gun owners. I am sorry that this type of mud slinging had to occur. The media tries to tie people opposed to abortion to the wackos who kill doctors. They do the same to gun owners. They try to tie we group of gun owners to the criminals that mis-use firearms.

Please try to stick to logical arguments in this tread.



It takes two to create life. The personal responsibility extends to both man and woman. Abortion is not a woman's rights issue, it's a personal responsibility issue.

For my opinion, please see my answer to that on page 1.

You know that is not how they justify it.  They have said the 9th amendment is a tautology.
You know that is not true.  Women were never chattel under the common law.  They have always had the the RKBA for instance.  Women have historically had the same constitutional rights as men, except for the vote.

But denying the right to vote then was bad, but denying other people the right to vote on an issue now is good, right?
If democracy is so damned wonderful, lets handle it in a democratic fashion.  Nine judges deciding that some right exists, without any textual justificiation, is hardly democratic.
Well, I am willing to find out.  They are not.  If you are so confident that abortion is popular, why not vote on it?

The oligarchs (I know I am overusing that term) are afraid to leave it to the people, even though a majority of voters are women, because they know what will happen if it came to a vote.

They can't handle the truth.  [;)]

In regard to the "end of discussion" point:  Wanna bet? [:D]

We've got four pages now, and ETH hasn't even weighed in yet!

I think that ETH is avoiding this one. [:D]

I seen and agreed with your post, but still haven't seen any "logical" explainations of why it should be OK for rape victims and not anyone else...

Could it be that every situation has no "logical" justification

or that there is always going to be a "logical justification" of evil or wrong doing for self serving purposes.....

or am I just not "logically oriented" enough?

My question for those people who say that all abortion is bad...except for cases of rape or incest is; Would you have supported Mary (yes, the mother of god) in getting an abortion?  I mean we could say that she was inpregnated without her knowledge or her consent, outside of her wedding vows, by someone other than her husband, right?

What about it?

It's kind of funny how every single one of you guys who responded to my 4 positions, completely danced around the personal freedom/Taliban analogy. Guess you just don't want to face the fact that passing religious legislation like this is indeed akin to the extremist mindset protrayed by our friends in Afghanastan.

Hell, while you're at it why don't you pass legislation requiring women to wear a burka so at least when they are raped, they can't be held responsible for enticement the perpetrator. We wouldn't want that to happen now would we.

Ben, I think you need to reread our responses, perhaps a little more carefully this time.  You are basically saying that people who are religious or who are male should not be allowed to have opinions on this issue.  That is absurd, and completely contrary to the tenets of the constitution.

See, this is America.  You get to get to have an opinion and vote on something no matter who you are or what you believe.  The Taliban would limit voting to males and Muslims.  In other words, the Taliban only let you have an opinion if you are the right sex and have the right religious beliefs.  YOU, Ben, are supporting the Taliban position, only in reverse.  Your people who can have opinions and vote on a subject must be female and atheist.

Just becuase someone has an opinion that happens to concide with a religious belief, there opinion does not count?  For instance, if it were against my religion to murder or steal, would I be forcing my religion on someone to vote for a law prohibiting murder of theft?

The only difference between religious opinions on murder, theft and abortion is that you happen to disagree with the latter.  Your whole argument is just designed to deny people a voice in our society who you disagree with.

Every law is a based upon morality, and most of them are founded on religous tenets.  Therefore, there should be no law?

And what about the woman's precious personal freedom?  She may have the right to vote, to due process, to a lawyer, to speech, to bear arms, to not incriminate herself, as well as all of the other freedoms a man might have, but she also needs the right to abort, right?  That is enshrined in the constitution, in Article ... now, where was that again?  Anyway,
lets not get caught up in technicalities, a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion, because that is part of her personal freedom.  She has the right to end that life, even if that life is vialble so long as it is still in her womb.  After it comes out of the womb, now that is a different story.  By magic, this life is now protected and killing it is by murder.  This whole thing about how a life magically becomes human really makes transubstantiation look like hard science.  But it is so obvious, and opinions on this subject are so united (and those who disagree are just dirty Taliban who should not be entitled to have opinions under the constitution), that we do not need to vote on it.

Clearly, the question only involves personal freedom.  No other lives are involved.  That is clear, and we never argue about it.  It is not debatable.  We may protect children from other crimes before age 18 - despite even the wishes of their parents, we may charge guys who punch pregnant women with murder, but it is entirely logically consistant that we do nothing to protect that fetus prior to the magical moment of birth.

Children may be born at 22 weeks and be viable, but we will let a woman abort a child at 40 weeks.  Birth is magical.  This is logical.  Freedom is the only issue, because hard science tells us that no other life is involved.

The public can not be trusted.  Women, the majority of voters, can not be trusted to protect their own interests.  We need an elite to protect us from ourselves.

It is not even open for discussion, especially if you are one of those dirty Taliban wannabees.  The answers are obvious, which is why you never hear any arguments on the subject.

And your Burka argument?  Silly.  Women constitute over one-half of the electorate.  The women can dictate politics in this country, IF THEY WANT TO.  Men could not make women wear Burkas unless the women wanted to.

Oh, I forgot that the right not to wear a burka is enshrined in Article ... where was that?  Anyway I am sure it right next to the right to an abortion.

Lastly, I would just like to point out that the right to personal freedom is absolute.  I have the right to kill, to steal, to yell fire in a theatre, to defraud my neighbor, to play loud music, to take drugs and to do anything to anybody as long as they consent - and the state can not protect anyone who can not protect their own interests.  These rights are enshrined in the constitution in Article ... now where is that again?

[Note, this post contains some sarcasm]

Justice(and lawmakers)are blind, God is not.

Um...actually, no you can't. Perhaps you might brush up on your Bible study. An Angel appeared to Mary and informed her of God's plan for her. Her response was 'Behold, the handmaiden of the Lord. Let it be done to me according to your word'. So no, it was with her knowledge as well as consent...she exercised her right to choose.

!  So you are saying she had an adulturous realitionship?

Mine wears glasses, it may not be blind, but it is damn far sighted...

Understanding that your post does contain some sarcasm, let me add a little of my own.

Right.  We need a moral majority to protect us.

Hmmm....  Seems like that's already being tried.  We obviously can't handle firearms because, hey, look what that DC guy did.

I hope our moral majority sees fit to take all of our guns away, since we can't make our own decisions.  It's so much better when the [b]federal government[/b] makes [b]our decisions[/b] for us.

And that, my friends, is the crux of the biscuit.  Stop using the federal government and federal courts as a tool for your religious or personal crusades.

Don't like abortions?  Ban them in your state.  The people who want them can, and likely will, move elsewhere.  That's about as close to foisting your opinion on others as you should get.

Bravo. More like... don't like abortions? Don't have one.