ABORTION.......

It's so good to see Frank being frank once again. Welcome back Frank!!

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

We're still dealing with Katrina but we ARE dealing with it.

Nah, the real nonsense is the nonsense that people seem to think some people don't just use common sense when it comes to abortion. Life is life.

Nah...the nonsense is much deeper than that, MA...and accrues almost entirely on the anti-choice side.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

It's so good to see Frank being frank once again. Welcome back Frank!!

Hey, Mesquite. Good to be back!!!

Twisted Evil

0 Replies

I am sorry that I have not read the entire thread. Has anyone mentioned that the U.S. Supreme Court now has a Roman Catholic majority (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas)? Does anyone think this may affect the future of Roe v. Wade?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

I am sorry that I have not read the entire thread. Has anyone mentioned that the U.S. Supreme Court now has a Roman Catholic majority (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas)? Does anyone think this may affect the future of Roe v. Wade?

Hi Wandeljw,

Kennedy's rulings have not always necessarily been guided by a Catholic position.

I think though that the states will continue to take the lead and make the Supreme Court less and less relevant on this issue.

What has always interested me was the pro-abortion camp's focus on the Supreme Court ruling as validation of their view. If the Supreme Court reverses itself, will abortion supporters conclude that they are wrong and that abortion is now suddenly a bad thing?

Pro-aborts have consistently admonished pro-lifers to 'sit down and shut up, the Court has settled this, why can't you give it up? etc '

So if the Court reverses Roe v Wade, will abortion supporters heed calls to 'sit down and shut up, the Court has spoken.......' ?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
A rejection of an all powerful central government is the foundation by which the American Revolution and the U.S Declaration of Independence came to be.

Not really true. The American Revolution was fought against monarchy. Many leaders of the revolution also felt that establishing a strong democratic central government was important for national unity and economic reasons.

Um....the monarchy in Britain at the time was an 'all powerful central government'.

I said nothing about having a strong central government nor do I say anything against that idea.

I believe power should be shared as did the framers of the Constitution......most power left to the people themselves.

The states are sovereign and not to be rubber stamps for our federal government.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
A rejection of an all powerful central government is the foundation by which the American Revolution and the U.S Declaration of Independence came to be.

Not really true. The American Revolution was fought against monarchy. Many leaders of the revolution also felt that establishing a strong democratic central government was important for national unity and economic reasons.

Um....the monarchy in Britain at the time was an 'all powerful central government'.

I said nothing about having a strong central government nor do I say anything against that idea.

I believe power should be shared as did the framers of the Constitution......most power left to the people themselves.

The states are sovereign and not to be rubber stamps for our federal government.

Really!

I thought thinking like this went out in the 19th century.

We are one country...and we need Balkanization like humans need a second belly button.

Wake up!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
A rejection of an all powerful central government is the foundation by which the American Revolution and the U.S Declaration of Independence came to be.

Not really true. The American Revolution was fought against monarchy. Many leaders of the revolution also felt that establishing a strong democratic central government was important for national unity and economic reasons.

Um....the monarchy in Britain at the time was an 'all powerful central government'.

I said nothing about having a strong central government nor do I say anything against that idea.

I believe power should be shared as did the framers of the Constitution......most power left to the people themselves.

The states are sovereign and not to be rubber stamps for our federal government.

Really!

I thought thinking like this went out in the 19th century.

We are one country...and we need Balkanization like humans need a second belly button.

Wake up!

One nation from 50 states. Do you see the states as mere geographic details frank? Do you believe States have any authority whatsoever?

Where does this authority come from? The Federal Government or the people?

Where does the authority of any government come from in a democracy?

You seem to be awake so i'll just ask.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

One nation from 50 states. Do you see the states as mere geographic details frank?

Pretty much so.

Or do you think each city should be an independent authority with no oversight from state or nation?

Quote:

Do you believe States have any authority whatsoever?

I do not do "believing"...but it is my opinion that the states have plenty of authority. I just think their "authority" is subordinate to the greater national interests.

Quote:

Where does this authority come from?

The law...the constitution.

Quote:

The Federal Government or the people?

A false choice. The authority the states have comes from the law...from the constitution.

Quote:

Where does the authority of any government come from in a democracy?

From the law...from the constitution. The constitution derives from the people.

Quote:

You seem to be awake so i'll just ask.

I am...and if you keep asking...you will be soon also.

Perhaps!

0 Replies

Thanks Frank.

Have a good day and goodnight.

BTW.....I don't even have a belly button. lol

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Thanks Frank.

Have a good day and goodnight.

You too, Bart.

Quote:

BTW.....I don't even have a belly button. lol

I was wondering about that! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Thanks Frank.

Have a good day and goodnight.

You too, Bart.

Quote:

BTW.....I don't even have a belly button. lol

I was wondering about that!

What were you wondering?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
A rejection of an all powerful central government is the foundation by which the American Revolution and the U.S Declaration of Independence came to be.

Not really true. The American Revolution was fought against monarchy. Many leaders of the revolution also felt that establishing a strong democratic central government was important for national unity and economic reasons.

Um....the monarchy in Britain at the time was an 'all powerful central government'.

I said nothing about having a strong central government nor do I say anything against that idea.

I believe power should be shared as did the framers of the Constitution......most power left to the people themselves.

The states are sovereign and not to be rubber stamps for our federal government.

You are right about that Bartikus. The Constitution gave specific, enumerated and LIMITED powers to the Federal government. All other power is left to state and local authorities.

Not too fashionable these days, perhaps. But that is the way our political contract is written.

Some folks like to pretend that the Constitution is a 'living' document and adapts to changing times. This type of wishful thinking is for those who cannot get the Constitution changed to suit their views by the one legitimate method -- the amendment process.

0 Replies

This country and its people have much, much less to worry about people who see the constitution as a living document...

...than they do from people stuck in the 18th century...and from people who want to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

But I can understand the mindset...no matter how repugnant I find it. For some people...women will always be second class citizens of the world...and they should have no rights to control their own bodies.

0 Replies

Now Frank, I think you are being a bit unfair here. I do not happen to think that women are second class citizens.

It's not about the women to me. It's about the life of the child. So you think they should have the right to control their bodies? So do I. I don't like abortion being a convenience for someone because they did not control their bodies in the first place. If they want the right to control their own body fine, start doing it by not getting pregnant in the first place.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

This country and its people have much, much less to worry about people who see the constitution as a living document...

...than they do from people stuck in the 18th century...and from people who want to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

But I can understand the mindset...no matter how repugnant I find it. For some people...women will always be second class citizens of the world...and they should have no rights to control their own bodies.

I think women should have say and contol over their own bodies Frank.

Self control proves to be very elusive.

0 Replies

Right, Momma...
It is especially important that women have the right to control their own bodies because of the possibility of pregnancy. And when a woman is pregnant she should still maintain the right to control her own body, and her rights should not interfere with or diminish the rights of the unborn person.
Abortion is like censorship, and neither is effective at ignoring something out of existence.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Right, Momma...
It is especially important that women have the right to control their own bodies because of the possibility of pregnancy. And when a woman is pregnant she should still maintain the right to control her own body, and her rights should not interfere with or diminish the rights of the unborn person.
Abortion is like censorship, and neither is effective at ignoring something out of existence.

And that's my problem with rights concerning abortion. The woman does interfere and diminish the rights of the unborn person.

Nice to see you, echi. How you doing?

0 Replies

Frank- Observe any country that is "backward". One of the hallmarks of a backward country is the subjugation of women. Whether we are talking about the former Taliban government in Afghanistan, where women were under virtual "house arrest", or the countries in sub-Saharan Africa where female genital mutilitation is rampant, there is one thing that these countries have in common.

These are areas that have not achieved the western standard in terms of technological and industrial advancement. They are living as their forebears lived centuries ago. And they each have one thing in common, that they treat women as inferior to men, as creatures to use for a man's pleasure, to provide sons, and to control her activities.

And the United States, the shining example of democracy, the radicals, (and not so radical) amongst us are now seeking to emulate the tribal mentality of these areas, by attempting to deprive women the soverenity over their own bodies.

The thing that is so ridiculous, if it weren't so sad, is that there are women in the US who are attempting to curtail their own rights.

0 Replies

It's not the rights of women I wish to curtail! It's the rights of the unborn children I wish to acknowledge!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know