It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1in Order to form a more perfect Union,2 establish Justice,3 insure domestic Tranquility,4a provide for the common defense,4b promote the general Welfare, and5 secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared.
Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth.
In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.
Originally posted by Amethyst
Legalized abortion is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Constitutionally the government SHOULD have some say...our laws are supposed to protect people!
As far as religion and schools: Children should not be forbidden from reading the Bible in school. Teachers should not be forbidden from passing out Bibles.
Gun control is anti-Second Amendment. No law should ever be passed forbidding anyone from owning a gun. Period.
Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law."
Originally posted by Amethyst
Legalized abortion is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Abortion should not even be a political issue to begin with! And Roe vs. Wade violates the Tenth Amendment, which says that powers not given to the federal government are given to the states.
Never mind that Roe, being contrary to the Constitution for the reasons stated above, is actually null and void!
As far as religion and schools: Children should not be forbidden from reading the Bible in school.
Teachers should not be forbidden from passing out Bibles.
The ACLU says it's protecting our freedoms but when they prohibit even mentioning God in school they're running contrary to the First Amendment.
Gun control is anti-Second Amendment. No law should ever be passed forbidding anyone from owning a gun. Period.
Originally posted by Odium
Surely it's fairly simple.
If something can't survive on its own, it isn't alive and/or has no life?
Originally posted by Odium
Surely it's fairly simple.
If something can't survive on its own, it isn't alive and/or has no life?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
But a child can not survive on its own even after birth, can it? Without at least some clarification of "survive on its own" that would move the abortion window up from the third trimester to like the 4th year of life.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
And then there is life support to consider. Some people do eventually get off of life support. Terri Schaivo wasn't one of them of course, but I've seen several people who had been alive, then couldn't survive on their own, then a couple weeks later were sitting on the couch talking to me again. So did they die and come back to life? Could I have shot them during that brief window and it wouldn't have been murder?
Prior to the child being able to leave its mothers womb I do not see it as alive. However, I think more needs to be done at an earlier stage. Any test that can be done has to be done so we don't result in terminations 7/8months into the pregnency.
I myself, do not like the idea of keeping people who are mentally ill alive. It might seem wrong or evil however I've worked with people who machins say have no brain activity. They have no ability to understand anything and the Government's have to spend millions on them which it can't afford to do anymore.
It's also very upsetting to sit there and have to treat a 50+ year old person as though they are 12months and in some cases younger than that.
Originally posted by Odium
Tinkleflower, the problem is their parents and/or family members do not care.
It's sickening and to me abortion is a much better option for that person/child.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
...... Would we be better or worse off if the federal government butted out of our private lives and allowed us to set the law as we saw fit in our communities, instead of painting the whole country with the same broad brush?
If California wants to smoke pot, why can't they? (granted that the federal government would have the authority to rule on any disputes arising over interstate travel to California for the purposes of using marijuana, and any safety concerns related to interstate commerce.)
Arizona wants to give every Tom, Dick, and Dirty Harry the right to carry a concealed weapon without a special permit, from where does the federal government derive the right to tell the voters in that state that it's too dangerous?
What if I told you that constitutionally the federal government has absolutely no say over things like abortion, gun control, affirmative action, etc etc, and that political hot topics like those are infact invasions of your personal liberty by powerhungry political parties, designed to create fear and division in the American public so that we will remain loyal partisan voters?
What do you guys think? Am I way off on this?
Like I'm always saying (or threatening) I'm going to congress some day. if you don't like these ideas, this would be a really good time to work on changing my mind.
Originally posted by Rren
I say no, we would not be better off. I mean how long before the U.S. fractures into rival sects seperated by ideologies..something akin to the middle east? Imho our unity is our strength. Sure somethings can and need to be "community specific", but abortion, civil rights, gun rights(laws), free speech et al need to be a one law fits all thing. [/obvious]
I think they should be able to. No different in my opinion then cigarrettes, booze, gambling etc.. I do think though that a law legalizing Marijuana should be national law and not only specific to California. Why would it be ok for Cali and not Idaho or whatever, i don't see a rational argument.
No one is saying that you cannot carry a concealed weapon, only that you cannot do so anonomously. I think that's fair.
But don't you agree that we should have supreme law of the land when it comes to specific issues? Namely the ones you named; like abortion, gun control, affirmative action,
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
The web of big government is so tightly spun, I doubt the grip of big fed govt can be easily loosened.
Furthermore, too many people seem to want the federal government to take care of them.