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.
Most likely "we" (the people of CA) would vote overwhelmingly to keep Roe v Wade intact... so would you be able to accept that?
I would accept it in the sense that I would acknowledge it as state law. I certainly would not agree with the law - and I would actively seek to change it.
That is exactly my stance on gay marriage laws - also.
I support states rights - and support the federal government only exercizing the powers it is limited to as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
The tenth amendment makes it clear that the federal government should stay out of abortion and gay marriage issues - which is why I opposed DOMA and oppose Roe v Wade.
Oh, you won't like it either. Your choice and rights over your own body will be removed. But apparently you're fine with other people making decisions for others...
No - that would be you - since you support a person making a decison for another person whether they can live or not.
Yep... that is called giving other women the CHOICE, and allowing them to make that decision for themselves. Get it now? We're not making a choice for anyone else, but completely and totally putting that into their hands alone - which is something you are clearly not capable of doing.
P.S. I won't even discuss the fact that a fetus (esp in the stage where abortion is legal) isn't a "person," since we've already covered that in the 5,000 other abortion threads.
Yep... that is called giving other women the CHOICE, and allowing them to make that decision for themselves. Get it now? We're not making a choice for anyone else, but completely and totally putting that into their hands alone - which is something you are clearly not capable of doing.
P.S. I won't even discuss the fact that a fetus (esp in the stage where abortion is legal) isn't a "person," since we've already covered that in the 5,000 other abortion threads.
You've covered it but it's still not true. Abortion is murder. A woman that chooses to murder her child is a murderer.
You've covered it but it's still not true. Abortion is murder. A woman that chooses to murder her child is a murderer.
Can you prove that in court? Nope, didn't think so.
Since I've often heard that liberals argue with their hearts, while conservatives argue with their brains - why do you all insist on using emotional lines like "abortion is murder" or the tired old "abortion stops a beating heart," while ignoring the facts? Fact, murder is defined as follows:
1. Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
So spare us the catch-phrases, and try explaining scientifically how a first-trimester fetus is capable of life outside the womb... then maybe we can talk.
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.
