not very happy right now

[Tina]

I just went to the store with mom and dad.. When we were comming home there was this plane. It was avertising
"10 week abortions" then it gave a number.. grrrrrrrrrrrr

That is the one thing I can't stand.. Women who have an abortion is yeah well you really don't want to hear what I have to say about it.. Cause they are killing a kid and should be put away for murder.. I know I know there are exeptions.. Medical.. But just cause you don't want the baby is not reason.. And the people that do them grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.. Should have calmed down a bit before talking about it..

well this is my opion on it.. If you don't want a kid keep your legs closed.... end of it.. or use protections..or keep it zipped up and put away.. To many ppl out there want kids and can't have them..
Hell if you want to murder someone go out and murder someone don't do it to a child that hasnt eve had a chance to liv yet.. I am one of those ppl that got pregnet and didn't mean to BUT I would NEVER think of having an abortion.. NEVER....
This just really really upsets me like know one can believe..
sorry to bitch so much about it..
love ya
Your friend and God Bless,
Tina

[Keith_Hixson]

Abortion is nothing more than a violation of the sanctity of life. It Would be better if we became a moral society that prevented unwanted pregnancies than aborting a life.

Keith

[firemedic]

Hear, Hear! Now-a-days everyone is crying about not having enough workers to support those who are ready to retire and feed at the SS trough. Since 1973, about 40 million "workers" have been quietly killed for the sake of convienence. One of the temporal consequences has come home to roost.

[SuperScout]

What Keith and firemedic said....

And just remember on 2 Nov which candidate is pro-life and which one is pro-abortion.

[revwardoc]

While I agree with Keith, I have to take SuperScout's words with a grain of salt. According to the law of the land (Roe vs Wade, 1973), a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy should she so choose. It's not that Kerry is pro-abortion, it's that he's pro-choice. And a candidate shouldn't be elected on just one issue, especially one that is more personal than political.

I also agree with Tina in that abortion should be the absolute last option a woman should choose as there are many ways to prevent pregnancy (the pill, condoms, ABSTINENCE, etc.). Many school districts across the country have eliminated sex-ed from the curriculums under the guise that it promotes promiscuity. This was primarily promoted by religious leaders who blame schools for "teaching their children about sex". In my opinion, if parents took the lead and talked openly about it instead of taking the Puritanical approach of keeping it behind locked doors and shuttered windows, and promoting a healthy outlook instead of making sex "the Devil's tool", our society would be a lot better off.

Sex is not evil, or dirty; it's natural; but at the same time we have to educate our children of its potential, and real, consequences. Knowledge is strength; ignorance is for the weak.

And, Tina; yeah, the airborne ad was just so wrong!

[firemedic]

Revwardoc,

I hear where you're coming from, but please ponder this. If you took a vote in this country today, R-v-W would not stand. That law was not established in congress, the law making branch of our government, but passed by activist judges who are not elected by the people. These judges are only supposed to interpret the constitution. If they feel a law is not constitutional, then it should go back to the legislature for amendment. In this arena, the people can use their power of the vote to let their legislators know their wishes on the matter. That is one reason our political process has become so vitriolic. Everything hangs on getting your man elected so that he can appoint judges who will tout the party line until they retire or die... Regardless of what the people really want.

Food for thought!

[revwardoc]

firemedic,

The Roe vs Wade decision didn't specifically legalize abortion. What it did was strengthen the Due Process Law of the XIV Amendment, which protects an idividual's right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. The case initially involved a Texas state law that said an abortion could only be used in a case where criminality was involved (aka, rape or incest) or if the life of the mother was in jeapordy.

The XIV Amendment (ratified 7/9/1868) states:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



According to the interpretation of the US Supreme Court, Roe vs Wade fell under this jurisdiction so the law wasn't specifically changed, just re-defined. It would take another Amendment and a conservative USSC to change the law.

[SuperScout]

Methinks there's some semantical wrestling going on here, with the interspersed of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-abortion' having almost identical meanings. At the macro level, the baby (also referred to as a fetus by some), has no choice in the matter when its mother decides to abort the pregnancy.

Most constitutional authorities would seriously question if the 14th Amendment really contains such stretched "rights of privacy" as found in the extant decision. To claim that a woman has the right to make decisions about her body is to ignore laws against prostitution, against public intoxication, and against illegal drug use. There are no such absolute rights that a woman has, any more that anyone else has any absolute rights. R v. W was very bad law, and that it got decided at the federal level is yet another example of judges legislating from the bench. I do believe that abortions should be available under certain rather constrained circumstances, but that they should not be an item that we as taxpayers should have to bear.

[Tina]

okay guys lets close this topic for good.. I didn't post it for it to become a politic debate.. I was pissed off at the time I typed all out..
For one I really don't give a shit if it is legal or not.. Its 100% murder and the mother and doctor doing it should go to jail for life for killing a baby..
with that i would like for you all to respect me enough to let this subject be closed..
Thanks bunches
love ya all
Your friend and God Bless,
Tina

[revwardoc]

SuperScout,

The Constitutional authority that has the final say over what is or is not legal is not Congress, but the Supreme Court. As I said, like it or not, Roe vs Wade was determined to come under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. The Court didn't legislate anything. Also a fetus in the first trimester is not considered to be a viable human being (a debatable point) so a woman's decision to have an abortion at that time will legally affect only herself while the consequences of prostitution, and alcohol and drug abuse can, and often do, affect others.

Until Roe vs Wade in re-interpreted, abortions will continue to be legally, if not morally, acceptable.