Constitutional amendment to ban abortion?

[fleshconsumed]

Like the topic says, why can't we get a normal presidential nominee? That is someone who is not a raving lunatic nut-job?

Here's the latest sting which to be honest seems almost unbelievable to me that someone would call for this:

http://ap.google.com/article/A...xuk49pzfZ3yyQD8U6NTTG0

Huckabee, 3rd in Mich, Looks to SC

By LIBBY QUAID ? 10 hours ago

LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) ? Mike Huckabee, nursing a second third-place finish in northern states, looked ahead to the South where he hopes his Arkansas roots and Baptist background will put him back on a winning track in South Carolina.

"Ladies and gentlemen we're going to win South Carolina," he declared to supporters in Lexington.

Huckabee, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, has emerged from the back of the pack into an improbable contender. But he has since had to watch John McCain win New Hampshire and, now, Mitt Romney win Michigan. He is staking his new foothold on South Carolina's social conservatives and religious voters as well as young working-class voters attracted to his economic populist message. South Carolina's GOP primary is Saturday.

"We put a flag in the ground here Saturday," he said of the state. "We're going to make it real clear that the first-in-the-South primary is going to give their support to the first-in-the-South candidate."

The state is more familiar ground for the folksy ordained Baptist minister. More than half of the state's likely Republican voters are white evangelicals, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. It was those voters who carried Huckabee to victory in Iowa.

But there are no guarantees for the former Arkansas governor. According to exit polls in Michigan, about four in 10 voters in the GOP contest called themselves born-again or evangelical Christians, and they split about evenly between Huckabee and Romney. In New Hampshire last week, those voters split evenly among Huckabee, Romney and McCain.

Huckabee will compete for those voters in South Carolina with Romney and Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and television actor who is staking the life of his campaign on a victory in South Carolina.

"Whatever it takes, we're in it for the long haul," Huckabee said on CNN.

As he did in Michigan, Huckabee was expected to rally pastors to help turn out their flocks. He draws heavy support from parents who home school their children, a small but actively engaged bloc that populate his cadre of volunteers. Huckabee repeated one of his favorite applause lines Tuesday, telling supporters, "Mothers and fathers raise better kids than governments do."

Huckabee has drawn distinctions with his rivals over abortion and gay marriage by calling for constitutional amendments to ban both. Thompson and McCain oppose same-sex marriage but stop short of calling for a constitutional amendment. On abortion, Huckabee is alone in calling for a constitutional amendment.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said Monday night in Warren, Mich. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards."

He also talked tough on immigration. Arriving Tuesday in Rock Hill, S.C., Huckabee called for suspending immigration from countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists, going further than any of his rivals in proposing to clamp down on immigration.

"I say we ought to put a hiatus on people who come in here ... if they come from countries that sponsor and harbor terrorists," he said. "Let's say, until you get your act in order, and we get our act in order, we're not going to just let you keep coming and threaten the future and safety of America."

His campaign quickly backtracked; Huckabee dropped the issue in his next speech, and an adviser, Jim Pinkerton, said Huckabee really meant he wants a "thorough review" of immigration problems.

He has appealed for working-class voters by saying he was the first among the Republican candidates to recognize economic hardships that many Americans face.

"If you spend some time listening to people you're going to find that there's a world of hurt out there in America," he told his South Carolina supporters.

Huckabee trails his rivals in financing and was outspent by both Romney and Huckabee in Michigan. He spent about $480,000 in advertising in the state, compared to more than $2 million by Romney.

 

[StageLeft]

I am generally against abortion/baby killing, but this is really not something the next president should be looking at right now. They should start with trying to get the economy away from what looks to be a cluster-fvck, recover from the cluster-fvck of Iraq and work on foreign relations, which is also a cluster-fvck. Issues like this and gay marriage (which I do condone) are distractions to keep people away from issues that have more importance to their immediate lives. Why we're still talking about gay marriage, an issue that affects almost nobody at all, is case in point of this ridiculous trend.

 

[M0R0NI]

I agree there are much more important fish to fry.

 

[fleshconsumed]

It's one thing to oppose them because of your personal believes, it's completely another thing to force your beliefs on entire country through constitutional amendment.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Like the topic says, why can't we get a normal presidential nominee? That is someone who is not a raving lunatic nut-job?

Here's the latest sting which to be honest seems almost unbelievable to me that someone would call for this:

http://ap.google.com/article/A...xuk49pzfZ3yyQD8U6NTTG0

Huckabee, 3rd in Mich, Looks to SC

By LIBBY QUAID ? 10 hours ago

LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) ? Mike Huckabee, nursing a second third-place finish in northern states, looked ahead to the South where he hopes his Arkansas roots and Baptist background will put him back on a winning track in South Carolina.

"Ladies and gentlemen we're going to win South Carolina," he declared to supporters in Lexington.

Huckabee, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, has emerged from the back of the pack into an improbable contender. But he has since had to watch John McCain win New Hampshire and, now, Mitt Romney win Michigan. He is staking his new foothold on South Carolina's social conservatives and religious voters as well as young working-class voters attracted to his economic populist message. South Carolina's GOP primary is Saturday.

"We put a flag in the ground here Saturday," he said of the state. "We're going to make it real clear that the first-in-the-South primary is going to give their support to the first-in-the-South candidate."

The state is more familiar ground for the folksy ordained Baptist minister. More than half of the state's likely Republican voters are white evangelicals, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. It was those voters who carried Huckabee to victory in Iowa.

But there are no guarantees for the former Arkansas governor. According to exit polls in Michigan, about four in 10 voters in the GOP contest called themselves born-again or evangelical Christians, and they split about evenly between Huckabee and Romney. In New Hampshire last week, those voters split evenly among Huckabee, Romney and McCain.

Huckabee will compete for those voters in South Carolina with Romney and Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and television actor who is staking the life of his campaign on a victory in South Carolina.

"Whatever it takes, we're in it for the long haul," Huckabee said on CNN.

As he did in Michigan, Huckabee was expected to rally pastors to help turn out their flocks. He draws heavy support from parents who home school their children, a small but actively engaged bloc that populate his cadre of volunteers. Huckabee repeated one of his favorite applause lines Tuesday, telling supporters, "Mothers and fathers raise better kids than governments do."

Huckabee has drawn distinctions with his rivals over abortion and gay marriage by calling for constitutional amendments to ban both. Thompson and McCain oppose same-sex marriage but stop short of calling for a constitutional amendment. On abortion, Huckabee is alone in calling for a constitutional amendment.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said Monday night in Warren, Mich. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards."

He also talked tough on immigration. Arriving Tuesday in Rock Hill, S.C., Huckabee called for suspending immigration from countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists, going further than any of his rivals in proposing to clamp down on immigration.

"I say we ought to put a hiatus on people who come in here ... if they come from countries that sponsor and harbor terrorists," he said. "Let's say, until you get your act in order, and we get our act in order, we're not going to just let you keep coming and threaten the future and safety of America."

His campaign quickly backtracked; Huckabee dropped the issue in his next speech, and an adviser, Jim Pinkerton, said Huckabee really meant he wants a "thorough review" of immigration problems.

He has appealed for working-class voters by saying he was the first among the Republican candidates to recognize economic hardships that many Americans face.

"If you spend some time listening to people you're going to find that there's a world of hurt out there in America," he told his South Carolina supporters.

Huckabee trails his rivals in financing and was outspent by both Romney and Huckabee in Michigan. He spent about $480,000 in advertising in the state, compared to more than $2 million by Romney.

Where would american voters stand on these (as separate issues) if you put the vote in front of them, rather than with congress, or the SCOTUS?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Like the topic says, why can't we get a normal presidential nominee? That is someone who is not a raving lunatic nut-job?

Here's the latest sting which to be honest seems almost unbelievable to me that someone would call for this:

http://ap.google.com/article/A...xuk49pzfZ3yyQD8U6NTTG0

Huckabee, 3rd in Mich, Looks to SC

By LIBBY QUAID ? 10 hours ago

LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) ? Mike Huckabee, nursing a second third-place finish in northern states, looked ahead to the South where he hopes his Arkansas roots and Baptist background will put him back on a winning track in South Carolina.

"Ladies and gentlemen we're going to win South Carolina," he declared to supporters in Lexington.

Huckabee, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, has emerged from the back of the pack into an improbable contender. But he has since had to watch John McCain win New Hampshire and, now, Mitt Romney win Michigan. He is staking his new foothold on South Carolina's social conservatives and religious voters as well as young working-class voters attracted to his economic populist message. South Carolina's GOP primary is Saturday.

"We put a flag in the ground here Saturday," he said of the state. "We're going to make it real clear that the first-in-the-South primary is going to give their support to the first-in-the-South candidate."

The state is more familiar ground for the folksy ordained Baptist minister. More than half of the state's likely Republican voters are white evangelicals, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. It was those voters who carried Huckabee to victory in Iowa.

But there are no guarantees for the former Arkansas governor. According to exit polls in Michigan, about four in 10 voters in the GOP contest called themselves born-again or evangelical Christians, and they split about evenly between Huckabee and Romney. In New Hampshire last week, those voters split evenly among Huckabee, Romney and McCain.

Huckabee will compete for those voters in South Carolina with Romney and Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and television actor who is staking the life of his campaign on a victory in South Carolina.

"Whatever it takes, we're in it for the long haul," Huckabee said on CNN.

As he did in Michigan, Huckabee was expected to rally pastors to help turn out their flocks. He draws heavy support from parents who home school their children, a small but actively engaged bloc that populate his cadre of volunteers. Huckabee repeated one of his favorite applause lines Tuesday, telling supporters, "Mothers and fathers raise better kids than governments do."

Huckabee has drawn distinctions with his rivals over abortion and gay marriage by calling for constitutional amendments to ban both. Thompson and McCain oppose same-sex marriage but stop short of calling for a constitutional amendment. On abortion, Huckabee is alone in calling for a constitutional amendment.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said Monday night in Warren, Mich. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards."

He also talked tough on immigration. Arriving Tuesday in Rock Hill, S.C., Huckabee called for suspending immigration from countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists, going further than any of his rivals in proposing to clamp down on immigration.

"I say we ought to put a hiatus on people who come in here ... if they come from countries that sponsor and harbor terrorists," he said. "Let's say, until you get your act in order, and we get our act in order, we're not going to just let you keep coming and threaten the future and safety of America."

His campaign quickly backtracked; Huckabee dropped the issue in his next speech, and an adviser, Jim Pinkerton, said Huckabee really meant he wants a "thorough review" of immigration problems.

He has appealed for working-class voters by saying he was the first among the Republican candidates to recognize economic hardships that many Americans face.

"If you spend some time listening to people you're going to find that there's a world of hurt out there in America," he told his South Carolina supporters.

Huckabee trails his rivals in financing and was outspent by both Romney and Huckabee in Michigan. He spent about $480,000 in advertising in the state, compared to more than $2 million by Romney.

Where would american voters stand on these (as separate issues) if you put the vote in front of them, rather than with congress, or the SCOTUS?

There is a good reason the founders adopted the form of a Constitutional Republic. They considered a direct democracy on a scale such as this to be so inherently dangerous as to be avoided at all costs.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " - Thomas Jefferson

 

[piasabird]

Only takes one judge to make a mockery of justice.

 

[Lemon law]

Although I am not one of them, I know some people who are very concerned about the abortion issue and equate it with murder. For them, its always going to be the number one issue.

In the way of history, these people were happy camper when they had basically 50 different state laws outlawing abortion. And the onus would have been on the pro choice majority to overturn them one by one. Then along came Roe v Wade and suddenly all these laws were invalid.

Suddenly, at the stroke of a judges pen, the onus shifted to the pro life minority to create such a national law. And as many law makers like to put it, that dog won't hunt and they don't have enough horses. And for a politician, there is that catch 22 dilemma. They want the votes of the pro lifers, but in advocating direct Federal laws, they lose more pro choice votes
than they gain.

And as we know, everyone wants their cake and to eat it too. So they invent these clever arguments. (1) I will advocate a constitutional amendment that does not stand a snowballs chance in hell of passing. And its not my fault it did not pass. (2) I will appoint the judges who will overturn Roe v Wade. And even if that happens, then its the onus of minority pro lifers to get new laws passed outlawing abortion. But still its the first holy grail hill to climb and they will vote for anyone assaulting that hill without worrying about the mountain behind.

These image and nothing actually delivered arguments have kept the religious right happy with the GOP for almost three decades. But in terms of getting a constitutional amendment,
a minority can't deliver a 2/3 thirds majority. Just flat out ain't gonna happen.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
It's one thing to oppose them because of your personal believes, it's completely another thing to force your beliefs on entire country through constitutional amendment.

There's nothing wrong with forcing your beliefs on people if your beliefs are good. I'm sure some people wouldn't like blacks to have the right to vote, yet we have the 15th amendment regardless.

Not to mention, Roe v. Wade is guilty of exactly that. It's a blanket decision that allows abortion effectively at any stage of pregnancy because it provides for the mental health of the mother, which can be construed to mean almost anything. No state can pass a law otherwise, and that's just as forcible an imposition of one's belief over anothers.

The fact is, passing any law is forcing your belief on others. Some people may not think murder is so bad.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The fact is, passing any law is forcing your belief on others. Some people may not think murder is so bad.

No it does not? Take the same Roe vs. Wade decision for example. In fact Roe vs. Wade says that government cannot force their beliefs on you. It gives the choice back to the mother. Roe vs. Wade does not ban abortion nor does it says a woman must have an abortion. A woman can choose to have a child or she can choose not to. If Roe vs. Wade is guilty of forcing belief on you it's guilty of forcing belief of right of people to choose.




This topic has went astray with pro/anti abortion. What I meant to say with the original post is that anyone who proposes such a radical proposal is unfit of being a president. If he is so irrational about a single issue, he is likely not to have his head screwed on right and cannot be trusted with any other decisions.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

This topic has went astray with pro/anti abortion. What I meant to say with the original post is that anyone who proposes such a radical proposal is unfit of being a president. If he is so irrational about a single issue, he is likely not to have his head screwed on right and cannot be trusted with any other decisions.

Does not the official RNC party platform include getting a human life amendment added to the constitution? If a Rep candidate simply stays in line with his party's enumerated goals then I don't think you can lay the blame with the candidate. Seems to me to it's the party that you would have the disagreement with. Of course, this is only seen as a problem if you are pro-choice. If you are pro-life it's an admirable goal.

Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.

Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 86 Sep 1, 2004

I don't think that's acceptable. Abortion should be legal so long as the fetus agrees:
http://www.theonion.com/conten...ortion_bill_to_require

:laugh:

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The fact is, passing any law is forcing your belief on others. Some people may not think murder is so bad.

No it does not? Take the same Roe vs. Wade decision for example. In fact Roe vs. Wade says that government cannot force their beliefs on you. It gives the choice back to the mother. Roe vs. Wade does not ban abortion nor does it says a woman must have an abortion. A woman can choose to have a child or she can choose not to. If Roe vs. Wade is guilty of forcing belief on you it's guilty of forcing belief of right of people to choose.




This topic has went astray with pro/anti abortion. What I meant to say with the original post is that anyone who proposes such a radical proposal is unfit of being a president. If he is so irrational about a single issue, he is likely not to have his head screwed on right and cannot be trusted with any other decisions.

Within your post lies the problem. The debate must take place to decide if what he proposes is irrational or radical. I think, at the current time the majority of the popular vote would be on the irrational and radical side , as you see it, of either of these issues.

 

[Deeko]

Ok.....ok.

The second half of that quote, most specifically

"change the word of the living God," Huckabee said Monday night in Warren, Mich. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards"

is among THE WORST politcal statements I have EVER heard. You can be religious. You can let your religion shape your views. That's all fine. I'm not even commenting on abortion or gay marriage - that line goes completely against separation of church and state, which is why this country was colonized to begin with! It's an abomination to America, I hope to God (yes, God) that this man does not get elected.

 

[Pabster]

Huckabee is a scary man, indeed. Besides being another Arkansas liberal [fiscal], he's a religious predator.

I am against abortion in most cases but the idea of adding a constitutional amendment is not something I agree with. I much prefer Thompson's approach, allowing the states to decide. Federalism, folks.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
It's one thing to oppose them because of your personal believes, it's completely another thing to force your beliefs on entire country through constitutional amendment.

There's nothing wrong with forcing your beliefs on people if your beliefs are good. I'm sure some people wouldn't like blacks to have the right to vote, yet we have the 15th amendment regardless.

Not to mention, Roe v. Wade is guilty of exactly that. It's a blanket decision that allows abortion effectively at any stage of pregnancy because it provides for the mental health of the mother, which can be construed to mean almost anything. No state can pass a law otherwise, and that's just as forcible an imposition of one's belief over anothers.

The fact is, passing any law is forcing your belief on others. Some people may not think murder is so bad.

You forget that we have rights. We have a right not to be slaves and that includes slaves to the accidental fact that half of us can have children if sperm gets in our vaginas at a particular time of our lives regardless of how it got there or our intentions. You can have any opinion you like regarding your own body and whether or not you want to consummate any pregnancy that happens to you if you are a woman, but you have no right make that call for your neighbor because you think your right is correct. Your right is to preserve your rights against those who would take them from you rather than to impose them on others. Your rights end where another's begin.

The difficulty with abortion and the absolute notion that a fertilized human egg is a person fully entitled to human rights is that it leads exactly to the slavery of women I just described. But since a fetus will become a human being if born there must be some sort of unsatisfactory definition, human created, as to what is a person. This unpleasant fact has to be faced, that religion and a religious view can't be substituted for a rational and secular analysis of when to call a human fetus a human in the eyes of secular human law. You are free to practice your religious view with your own pregnancy but not that of other women. They have the right to be free of your religion and its absolute opinion.

I'm not happy about it either. I have billions of half humans in my testicles and see billions of women in this world and I know they are here because of those billions of sperm. It's God's will I am certain there were all created to bring to term all my sperm and it's my right and duty to fertilize them all.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: K1052

There is a good reason the founders adopted the form of a Constitutional Republic. They considered a direct democracy on a scale such as this to be so inherently dangerous as to be avoided at all costs.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " - Thomas Jefferson

Uhhh, they already do that. Congress has long since abandoned any sense of Constitutional limits, so we already live under the tyranny of the majority.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Huckabee is a scary man, indeed. Besides being another Arkansas liberal [fiscal], he's a religious predator.

I am against abortion in most cases but the idea of adding a constitutional amendment is not something I agree with. I much prefer Thompson's approach, allowing the states to decide. Federalism, folks.

Huckabee is, IMO, the worst or second worst Republican candidate - fiscally liberal and a social conservative to the point where he thinks our nations' most important document should be amended to the word of HIS god.

 

[BoberFett]

Moonbeam

To maintain perspective, consider that the second a child is born the parents become slaves to that child for 18 or more years. If there was a right not to be a slave, then parents would be allowed to simply abandon their children, but that's against the law. So we have the state on one hand demanding that parents take care of their children under threat of prison, but we allow those who are about to become parents the freedom to kill their children.

Not to mention the slavery that men endure where a massive portion of their wages are stripped of them without ever having a choice. Women want to have a choice and own their bodes, but men don't have that option. The steps in and demands they turn over the fruit of their labor for almost two decades, essentially making them slaves. If they don't, they're thrown in jail.

I'm firmly pro-choice, but even I can see the inherent hypocrisy in our laws.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: K1052

There is a good reason the founders adopted the form of a Constitutional Republic. They considered a direct democracy on a scale such as this to be so inherently dangerous as to be avoided at all costs.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " - Thomas Jefferson

Uhhh, they already do that. Congress has long since abandoned any sense of Constitutional limits, so we already live under the tyranny of the majority.

Congress and the Executive have adopted far more power than they intended, that much is certainly true (and arguably expected by the framers as in inevitable consequence).

I can only imagine the horrific place this nation would be if they had decided to send every major law to referendum rather than through a republican process.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Ok.....ok.

The second half of that quote, most specifically

"change the word of the living God," Huckabee said Monday night in Warren, Mich. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards"

is among THE WORST politcal statements I have EVER heard. You can be religious. You can let your religion shape your views. That's all fine. I'm not even commenting on abortion or gay marriage - that line goes completely against separation of church and state, which is why this country was colonized to begin with! It's an abomination to America, I hope to God (yes, God) that this man does not get elected.

It is scary that he'd say that. Really it should torpedo his campaign but he has support of idiots. There is religious freedom here because of a continual effort by many to separate church from state. That is why they have their freedom to do whatever they like. Even a Christian should be unwilling to put their commandments into constitutional law because who knows if they'll be the next target?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Huckabee is a scary man, indeed. Besides being another Arkansas liberal [fiscal], he's a religious predator.

I am against abortion in most cases but the idea of adding a constitutional amendment is not something I agree with. I much prefer Thompson's approach, allowing the states to decide. Federalism, folks.

:thumbsup:

I find it funny/sad that some people who bring up church/state think it's what we were founded upon yet completely ignore other founding principles - such as Federalism.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Pabster
Huckabee is a scary man, indeed. Besides being another Arkansas liberal [fiscal], he's a religious predator.

I am against abortion in most cases but the idea of adding a constitutional amendment is not something I agree with. I much prefer Thompson's approach, allowing the states to decide. Federalism, folks.

Huckabee is, IMO, the worst or second worst Republican candidate - fiscally liberal and a social conservative to the point where he thinks our nations' most important document should be amended to the word of HIS god.

Im pretty sure almost every religion is against abortion. That said Huck is merely pandering to the religious right. Much like Romney was pandering to the auto workers in Michigan.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: K1052

There is a good reason the founders adopted the form of a Constitutional Republic. They considered a direct democracy on a scale such as this to be so inherently dangerous as to be avoided at all costs.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. " - Thomas Jefferson

Uhhh, they already do that. Congress has long since abandoned any sense of Constitutional limits, so we already live under the tyranny of the majority.

Congress and the Executive have adopted far more power than they intended, that much is certainly true (and arguably expected by the framers as in inevitable consequence).

I can only imagine the horrific place this nation would be if they had decided to send every major law to referendum rather than through a republican process.

Which is why we have the Constitution to begin with, a document to specify who has what power. Instead, the feds have taken over everything and there is no room for direct democracy in the places where it does work: smaller levels of government. California's referendum on medical marijuana? Ignored by the feds. Thank god we have a republic. :roll:

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
It's one thing to oppose them because of your personal believes, it's completely another thing to force your beliefs on entire country through constitutional amendment.

There's nothing wrong with forcing your beliefs on people if your beliefs are good. I'm sure some people wouldn't like blacks to have the right to vote, yet we have the 15th amendment regardless.

Not to mention, Roe v. Wade is guilty of exactly that. It's a blanket decision that allows abortion effectively at any stage of pregnancy because it provides for the mental health of the mother, which can be construed to mean almost anything. No state can pass a law otherwise, and that's just as forcible an imposition of one's belief over anothers.

The fact is, passing any law is forcing your belief on others. Some people may not think murder is so bad.

You forget that we have rights. We have a right not to be slaves and that includes slaves to the accidental fact that half of us can have children if sperm gets in our vaginas at a particular time of our lives regardless of how it got there or our intentions. You can have any opinion you like regarding your own body and whether or not you want to consummate any pregnancy that happens to you if you are a woman, but you have no right make that call for your neighbor because you think your right is correct. Your right is to preserve your rights against those who would take them from you rather than to impose them on others. Your rights end where another's begin.

The difficulty with abortion and the absolute notion that a fertilized human egg is a person fully entitled to human rights is that it leads exactly to the slavery of women I just described. But since a fetus will become a human being if born there must be some sort of unsatisfactory definition, human created, as to what is a person. This unpleasant fact has to be faced, that religion and a religious view can't be substituted for a rational and secular analysis of when to call a human fetus a human in the eyes of secular human law. You are free to practice your religious view with your own pregnancy but not that of other women. They have the right to be free of your religion and its absolute opinion.

I'm not happy about it either. I have billions of half humans in my testicles and see billions of women in this world and I know they are here because of those billions of sperm. It's God's will I am certain there were all created to bring to term all my sperm and it's my right and duty to fertilize them all.

We have the right not be slaves because of a constitutional amendment protecting it.

The slavery of women you mention is a simple slavery to nature, to which we are all subjected. You could just as easily say we are slaves to urinate. It's a natural result of drinking, or at least consuming something. Women are slaves to their uteruses in the same manner. Pregnancy is a natural result of having unprotected sex; it's what the act of sexual intercourse is designed to bring about. Just because someone is unprepared for a natural consequence to their actions doesn't give them the right to say it's like slavery.

This is why the abstinence idea is so important. If you have no intention of getting pregnant, and you have sex using some sort of birth control, which fails, who is to blame for you getting pregnant? At the end of the day, it was you who decided, with full knowledge of the possible consequences, to play the odds; to do the singular act which alone can create babies, and you created a baby. That is squarely your responsibility, therefore. You can't cry foul because of a self-inflicted wound. You can't stand in the middle of an interstate and say, "If someone hits me, I'm the last person to blame."

My rights do end where another's begin, as you say. Regrettably, people don't extend that ethos to unborn children. No one has a right to kill an innocent, let alone their own child.

Lastly, I don't understand this detestation of religion with which so many people on the left are seized. Ironically, it's irrational. There's a simple reason that religion is a good thing: Without it, there are no intrinsic rights. Without it, your right not to be murdered is only good so far as the governments ability to protect it; that is, people wouldn't care about murdering you if they thought they could get away with it. Yet that is not the case. It's not because I fear the government that I don't murder people. It's because I believe it is objectively illegal; it is apart from the government's jurisdiction. This offers to me a very simple argument of why religion is a good thing, in general.

 

[Harvey]

Between this and his idea for a 23% sales tax, Huckabee has probabaly sunk his campaign... and none too soon. The guy's a couple of frejoles short of a combination plate.

Next, maybe he'll try to combine the two ideas into a birth control program by proposing to charge a 23% sales tax on newborns. :roll: