It's also why there is an amendment process. Those same writers had just sent their son's and peers off to die for this new found country.
If you think that the federal government should protect the right of women to be able to have abortions there is a process by which that can be made to happen. You simply don't like that process because you know that with the moral division on the issue in this country that such a measure wouldn't pass. Church and state isn't an issue, there are a great many people against abortion, not just the religious, additionally, there is a real argument about when it's appropriate, when is there a life. As we see younger and younger premature babies living I have more of a problem seeing anything outside of the first trimester. I have a good friend, an atheist objectavist that was at odds with me on abortion. She feels it is completely a personal responsibility issue. That with condoms, the day after pill, the pill, and the many different types and styles of birth control that there is really little or no reason for anywhere near so many accidental pregnancies. I don't want to cause a human child any harm. Not a potential child, I'm not trying to protect just cells and blood here, a child. My standard of life would be something like is it sustainable without the mother, can it feel pain, is it aware, have nerves formed. Dana wrote: > well see that is the problem with a strict interpretation of the > constituion applied to issues the writers hadn't dreamt of. You can > get there though either from a) separation of church and state or b) > if you can't search my house why is your business whether I am > pregnant? > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:23 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yeah not so much, it's not in there. >> >> Different states should be able to set different standards according to >> the legislation put forward by the elected representatives of the people. >> >> Should be constitution 101, what does the 10th amendment say? >> >> I will admit that even I have expanded my own limits on what should be >> legislated at federal level, but this just doesn't pass the test. >> >> I'm pro-choice, would support that legislature in my own state, but >> honestly, thats the form of government we're supposed to have here. >> >> >> Dana wrote: >>> the right to be left the fuck alone. >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> What is the constitutional impetus? >>>> >>>> Gruss Gott wrote: >>>>>> tBone wrote: >>>>>> I think roe v wade was a terrible decision, it should have been left to >>>>>> the states to handle. >>>>>> >>>>> I think it should've been left up to people who can see clinics from >>>>> their window. >>>>> >>>>> You know, experts. >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:272256 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
