Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The right to life, liberty and property rights.....wouldn't that include protecting a woman's liberty to make her own reproductive decisions?
Liberty, wouldn't that include a gay person's right to benefit from the state of marriage.....are they not citizens like everyone else?
Deliver the mail? Really? If the Republican constitutionalists believe delivering the mail is the government's responsibility,.....why are they actively trying to dismantle the USPS and turn mail delivery over to private corporations?
Yes, I agree. Every woman should have the right to make her own reproductive decisions.
That decision is:
a) copulate
b) do not copulate
I'm sure you understand that copulating is directly linked to conception and no one accidentally becomes pregnant, i.g., slipped in the shower and became pregnant. Once the adult decision to copulate is made, the responsibility to care for a child created as a result of this copulating should not have to be explained.
Could you please point out the section of the Constitution which deals with marriage and the right of homosexuals to enter into same-sex marriage?
At what point did adult humans get excused from the consequences of their decisions?
If the woman doesn't want to be burdened, she should take the initiative to not ****. However, if she decides she does in fact wish to copulate, there is no reason mentally sound adults should not be required to care for the life they (both parties) created.
A pre-born human has made no choices so as to be accountable for them.
A person who goes through life without so much as a low-cost high-deductible catastrophic care package knows they are rolling the dice. If they get caught, they should not be refused care, but they should also have their assets liquidated to pay their medical bills and let them work off the rest. Why can't a bankruptcy court order restitution in the form of hospital grounds maintenance or housekeeping? When the word gets out that the emergency room isn't a free medical clinic anymore, people will line up to get major medical coverage.
People that can only find minimum wage jobs cannot even afford to buy a catastrophic healthcare package.
You can't force someone who is physically unable to work to do maintenance and housekeeping to pay off their hospital bills.
People cannot line up to get major medical coverage if they do not have the money to pay for it.
However, I do agree with you in that many people work the system when they are perfectly capable of contributing something to their own care. There are a lot of loop holes that need tightened up, IMO.
We need to do a much better job of seperating the truly needy from the just plain irresponsible and lazy.
Apparently men and women are equally ignorant.....as neither sex has come up with a totally infallible method of birth control.
When Roe v Wade was decided, women were given the same freedom men have always had.....the freedom to walk away from an unintended pregnancy unscathed.
And......if men are so GD intelligent, how come so many of them allow themselves to be caught in the "parent trap"? Hmmmm? Why are they so irresponsible as to allow a woman access to their sperm in the first place? Hmmmm?
PS: Women were never given the authority to kill babies.
Not copulating is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.
If I could patent it, I would.
Men are free to walk away from an unintended pregnancy "unscathed"?
Last I heard they were required to pay child support for eighteen years.
And no one said men were intelligent.
PS: an embryo forms its own unique DNA as the life cycle of a new person begins at conception. No other following event will transform the unique genetic construction of this new living organism such that it would then become something it wasn't already. It becomes a person at the moment of conception and any act which causes its death before an accident, illness or old age does, is the murder of this same person.
Yes, I agree. Every woman should have the right to make her own reproductive decisions.
That decision is:
a) copulate
b) do not copulate
I'm sure you understand that copulating is directly linked to conception and no one accidentally becomes pregnant, i.g., slipped in the shower and became pregnant. Once the adult decision to copulate is made, the responsibility to care for a child created as a result of this copulating should not have to be explained.
Oh please! When are pro-lifers going to realize that promoting abstinence does not work? Do you really expect people who do not want children to ramain celibate for life, or in the case of women, until they are well into menopause? Not gonna happen, never gonna work.
We can put an end to crime too.....all we have to do is to tell people to be good!
Could you please point out the section of the Constitution which deals with
marriage and the right of homosexuals to enter into same-sex marriage?
The Federal Government recognizes hetrosexual marriage.....they give married people the benefit of taking advantage of their spouse's SS earnings....by virtue of marriage. Homosexuals are US Citizens and the government should also recognize their equality with hetrosexuals by granting them the same rights of marriage.....federally.
The Federal Government has already involved itself in the institutuon of marriage by its actions, as far a I am concerned.
Not copulating is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.
If I could patent it, I would.
Men are free to walk away from an unintended pregnancy "unscathed"?
Last I heard they were required to pay child support for eighteen years.
And no one said men were intelligent.
PS: an embryo forms its own unique DNA as the life cycle of a new person begins at conception. No other following event will transform the unique genetic construction of this new living organism such that it would then become something it wasn't already. It becomes a person at the moment of conception and any act which causes its death before an accident, illness or old age does, is the murder of this same person.
Isn't going to do you any good to patent abstinence....since nobody's gonna buy it! {not even priests}
Many men have perfected the art of being a dead beat dad.
An embryo has unique DNA.....so what? That still does not make it a person with rights that trump those of a woman.
The right to life, liberty and property rights.....wouldn't that include protecting a woman's liberty to make her own reproductive decisions?
And unless it's rape, she did make that decision.
What's next? "Oh, I've been smoking for 10 years, how dare cancer cells try to take up residence in my body!
It's my body, and now society is responsible for removing said cancer cells!"
What's next? "Oh, I've been smoking for 10 years, how dare cancer cells try to take up residence in my body!
It's my body, and now society is responsible for removing said cancer cells!"
No she didn't....she only made the decision to have sex....she did not make the decision to become pregnant.....especially so, if BC failed. That is not a reason to punish her by making her carry a pregnancy against her will. Having consentual sex is not a crime that deserves punishment.
As to the healthcare for a smoker's cancer.....then I guess fat people shouldn't expect society to pay for their diabetes treatment or their heart attack....that football player that gets brain damaged or paralyzed playing the game.....too bad for him too. Get busted up in a car accident.....too bad.....you knew were taking a risk when you got into that car. Now.....do you really want to go there?
Isn't going to do you any good to patent abstinence....since nobody's gonna buy it! {not even priests}
Many men have perfected the art of being a dead beat dad.
An embryo has unique DNA.....so what? That still does not make it a person with rights that trump those of a woman.
Why would having its own unique DNA not make it a unique person?
I'm sure you would agree that its natural life cycle, one that would continue until natural death, begins at conception.
What other event transforms what you claim is not a person into a person?
It can't be passage through the birth canal because some babies are delivered by c-section.
And the fetus can't be the mother's body until separated because if it were, it would have her DNA and always be female, but that isn't the case is it?
And since when have the rights of one person been relative to those of another such that one person's rights could trump the other's?
The Pro-Life movement is a position generally associated with the right, as the Pro-Choice lobby is considered left. This always struck me as odd. If I knew nothing about where the two parties stood on this issue, but had an understanding on where they stood on defining the role of government, I would have bet the farm that Pro-Choice would be the Republican position demanding government not interfere with personal freedoms. I could also see the Democrats taking a position to defend the defenseless unborn.
Similarly the position of legalizing drugs is generally aligned with the left, whereas on paper, I would think the Republicans would view using drugs as a personal choice not to be interfered with by the government. Yet, neither party is interested in an agenda of expanding prohibition to alcohol or contracting it to exclude pot.
Thoughts?
First off, I'm not a religious person, and I have always been leaning more towards pro-life as long as I can remember, and way before I even bothered with politics.
I guess it all comes down to this, we have a society of laws and individual human rights. We want people to be free, and to have individual rights, and liberties, but those rights and freedoms should stop if in order to obtain those rights, we need to infringe upon others or take away the rights of others, or if, in order to obtain those rights, someone else must perform a service for us, or give up something, before we can have those rights.
I believe that a child in the womb is the most innocent, vulnerable and weakest among us, and we should look closely at our laws so as not to cross the line by refusing to protect the rights and liberties when a fetus becomes a child in the womb. Why this is not universal thought eludes me. Why the two parties are split on this i do not know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not gonna happen, never gonna work.
