English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Why do LIEberals like to practice euginics like their "Boss", Time's "Man of the Year" 1939?

Why do they enjoy the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies?

The babies are killed then burned. Doesn't that sound like another tormented, group of people during WW II?

Why do they lie and said Roe made abortion legal and yet abortion is protected by the constitution?

2007-06-14 09:30:56 · 19 answers · asked by nom de paix 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

19 answers

1 Cor. 6:12, 10:23.
It's legal only because enough law makers were persuaded (by hook or by crook) to cast their vote for it, however misguided.
As for them "liking" or "enjoying"?
Pure delusion.
Maybe they will realize one day how many votes they're losing by encouraging the wholesale killing of potential voters.
BTW I'm Pro-Choice. Choose not to engage in risky behavior or Choose (by default) to be personally responsible for the life-altering outcome.
no rape, no incest, no threat to the mothers' life = NO ABORTION
Likening it to the Holocaust (and I agree) really makes me shake my head in wonderment when I find that so many Jews
are Democrats.

2007-06-14 11:27:12 · answer #1 · answered by Mic 2 · 0 3

The question is not whether abortion is legal, but whether restrictions on it are constitutional.

The Constitution, (specifically through the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment applying the Bill to the states), essentially prevents a state or the federal government from passing laws prohibiting constitutionally protected conduct.

The Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, essentially said that a Constitutional "right to privacy" limited the government's ability to regulate and outlaw abortion. The existence of such a constitutional right in the text or by clear implication of the Framers' intent has been hotly contested, to say the least. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the rationale was flawed, although she agreed with the result.

Although not directly relevant to the issue, some have claimed that abortion was legal through much of our hiistory and was only regulated or criminalized later. That history is also disputed, and again may not be relevant to an inquiry regarding the constitutionality of later laws.

I choose to ignore the portions of the question I consider inflammatory.

2007-06-14 09:33:54 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2 1

Roe did not legalize abortion, It struck down laws that states created which allowed government to dictate what private medical procedures can be used.

Nothing more nothing less.

If you think about it, it also keeps the government from passing laws forcing people to have abortions like they do in china.

No matter how much you want to spread misinformation, it doesn't change the fact that the government does not have the right to dictate what we can and cannot do with our own bodies.

By the way the constitution is a document that spells out exactly what the government is expressly allowed and not allowed to do, everything else is defined as the liberty of the people per the founding fathers.

2007-06-14 09:51:40 · answer #3 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1 1

I'm amazed that you got any response to this 'question'.

Interesting that in the years 2002-2006, when the Republicans controlled the White House and had a majority in the House and Senate, that no real effort was made to overturn Roe v. Wade. They had four years. There was a small rumbling back in '04 but that was all there was.

I guess this issue just wasn't as important as creating an illegal war, doubling the national debt, creating more unemployment and a wider class gap, and helping big oil keep their billions of profit dollars. Oh, and helping Tom Delay control the State of Texas.

2007-06-14 09:46:46 · answer #4 · answered by psatm 3 · 2 1

If you want fewer abortions, support sex education and availability of birth control.

Not every specific activity is mentioned in the Constitution.

The idea is that we are free, except for those things that the government has a right to prohibit.

The Constitution doesn't grant us just a few rights; we HAVE rights, some are specifically mentioned as protected in the Constitution.

Read the 9th Amendment.

Just because a right isn't specifically mentioned, doesn't mean it isn't a right.

People have the right to make their own basic life decisions.

The right to decide for one's self what job to take or turn down isn't specifically mentioned -- do you think we DON'T have that right?

If you want to live in a dictatorship, where people have only the few rights their government gives them, move.

If you were capable of understanding either the Constitution or basic science, you wouldn't have said all the nonsense you spewed in your "question."

If you hate democracy, leave.

2007-06-14 13:41:25 · answer #5 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0 0

The issue is not its legality (though that is a problem in and of itself). The problem is that they call it a “Constitutional Right” notwithstanding the fact that it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

This is just one of many things people reflectively call “Constitutional Rights” on the basis of an unconstitutional amendment by fiat at the hands of activists justices. Article V of the Constitution delineates the procedure for amending the Constitution and I have yet to find any mention of the “courts” in the process.

2007-06-14 13:11:48 · answer #6 · answered by flightleader 4 · 0 0

particularly female have been aborting during the 1st 3 months of being pregnant for hundreds of years . The community human beings whilst below duress might use efficient herbs this style of peyote . below maximum circumstances maximum female do no longer choose to abort . this is often basically below severe duress that a female will experience that she has no determination . in spite of each thing abortion even on the instant is not any %. nick .

2016-10-09 05:23:43 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I see why you flunked out've Law school. I'm not even an "almost lawyer" and I know that Roe v. Wade set the precedent for choice and in effect mingled the issue within the Constitutional framework.

Oh yeah, and a fetus is not a baby. Take a science class.

2007-06-14 09:45:11 · answer #8 · answered by Sangria 4 · 5 1

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons... shall not be violated." -- Fourth Amendment. There it is, right there in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. And a woman forced to carry a child to term is, by definition, not secure in her person. That's the truth. But, hey, if that's not good enough for you, just continue to spread the big lie, like your god, Time's "Man of the Year" for 1938.

2007-06-14 10:13:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Why do we park in a driveway and drive on a parkway?

If you spin a Chinese guy around until he's dizzy, does he become disoriented?

These will be answered in the afterlife.

Give it up for pansyman!!!

Is it cruel to abort a fetus from a 14 year old girl that may die trying to give birth?

Is it cruel to abort a fetus from a rape victim only for her to know she has a child in the world from the rapist?

Is it cruel to abort a fetus if the fetus is deformed beyond a healthy, happy life?

Is it cruel to abort a fetus IF THE MOTHER DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE BIRTH?

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

2007-06-14 09:46:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers