What Is the Freedom of Choice Act?

Originally posted by Rintendo
reply to post by heyo

 

I hear you. My mother was a model when she got knocked up and was told that to have a baby at the height of her career would stall it out forever.

Needless to say she had me. I grew up pretty broke because she squandered a lot of her modeling money while she was modeling, but I grew up. I am very grateful that she didn't do what was best for her career, and I will always take care of her because she put me ahead of herself every step of the way.

I don't judge the women who have to make this decision. I think they are desperate. I would help women who had an abortion just as I've helped single mothers who chose not to. I blame society for its lack of compassion and its focus on material wealth being the only true wealth at a loss of character and integrity.

We live in a world that values nothing but the almighty "me". What is best for me...what can you do for me...how will it affect me...we care about nothing that does not enrich our life in the most convenient way for us.

Until we value all life: human, animal, nascent... we will continue to suffer.

You can have all the compassion in the world and it still won't matter. Every woman will think differently on the issue. Don't like it? Don't have one. That's your fourteenth amendment right. Why should you take mine away?

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But the fact remains that society does not have the right to dictate to a woman whether or not to have an abortion. It's a woman's constitutional right.

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to abortion?

Ah another one who hasn't read Roe v Wade. I suggest you start there and then read the fourth and fourteenth amendments. I love when people are trying to get a smarty response into a discussion but are ignorant.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by LittlePinky82]

reply to post by LittlePinky82

Originally posted by LittlePinky82

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But the fact remains that society does not have the right to dictate to a woman whether or not to have an abortion. It's a woman's constitutional right.

Where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to abortion?

Ah another one who hasn't read Roe v Wade. I suggest you start there and then read the fourth and fourteenth amendments.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by LittlePinky82]

I haven't read Roe v Wade but I have read the Constitution. Nowhere did I see the word abortion.

A law is not a Constitutional amendment.

I love when people are trying to get a smarty response into a discussion but are ignorant.

And I hate it when trolls come into a thread with a pissy attitude. Especially ignorant ones.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The 14th Amendment states:

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.

Life, liberty, and property in this context do not mean the right to an abortion, not by the wildest of interpretations.

It's obvious they are referring to taking away liberty by imprisoning someone. Thus the words "without due process of law".

[edit on 29-11-2008 by jsobecky]

Originally posted by jsobecky
I haven't read Roe v Wade

Well, maybe you should before claiming to know its meaning and connection to the US Constitution.

but I have read the Constitution. Nowhere did I see the word abortion.

And nowhere do you see the right to own a gun... Or the right to "marriage" or "Freedom of Expression" or ""innocent until proven guilty" or "jury of peers" or "No taxation without representation" or "the right to vote"... But I'm sure you know we have rights surrounding these concepts. They are Constitutional rights as determined by the courts.

You're just being stubborn and pig-headed.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Life, liberty, and property in this context do not mean the right to an abortion, not by the wildest of interpretations.

Your argument on that is with the Supreme Court, not me. Not having even read Roe v Wade, it seems extremely presumptuous for you to know what the Court meant in the ruling.

Source 1

The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.

Source 2

Roe v. Wade is a landmark decision that recognized that the right to make childbearing choices is central to women's lives and their ability to participate fully and equally in society. Yet, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe was far from radical -- it was the logical extension of High Court decisions on the right to privacy dating back to the turn of the century.

Source 3

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



By your first source, abortion can be limited.

And if you can refrain from your sniping, maybe we can continue this conversation. Otherwise, take it somewher else.

One more thing to remember: SCOTUS can rule, and SCOTUS can nullify.

Though unlikely now that that liberal idiot is in the WH. We're due for another generation of destructive court rulings.

Originally posted by jsobecky
By your first source, abortion can be limited.

Yes. Roe v Wade puts limits on abortion. I'm not arguing that.

You say that "abortion" doesn't appear in the Constitution, but when I show you many words that don't appear in the Constitution, yet we have rights based on them, you completely ignore it. What kind of intelligent discussion can be had when much of what I say is ignored?

If you really support the Constitution and the rights found therein, ver batum or not (as I do), it seems to me that you would support a woman's right to the privacy of her medical condition as well as her freedom to have children or not... even if you disagree with the concept... It seems to me you pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you support based on your own personal belief system. You fit the Constitution to YOU. Much in the same way people who try to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. It's highly distasteful to me when someone thinks that THEIR own personal belief system should be somehow incorporated into the Constitution.



Yes, the Supreme Court could rule again on Roe. That's not going to happen. They could also reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. That's not going to happen either.

It's insanely funny you should call Obama an idiot and be concerned about what he'll do to our Constitutional rights after the last 8 years. :shk: Where have you been?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
By your first source, abortion can be limited.

Yes. Roe v Wade puts limits on abortion. I'm not arguing that.

You say that "abortion" doesn't appear in the Constitution, but when I show you many words that don't appear in the Constitution, yet we have rights based on them, you completely ignore it. What kind of intelligent discussion can be had when much of what I say is ignored?

Because you're being ridiculous in you loosey-goosey interpretation of the Constitution. You've already said that you support breaking drug laws according to your sophomoric interpretation. You're a child when it comes to real life.

If you really support the Constitution and the rights found therein, ver batum or not (as I do), it seems to me that you would support a woman's right to the privacy of her medical condition as well as her freedom to have children or not... even if you disagree with the concept...

Privacy of medical records, fine. Killing a soul, horrible.

Btw, the spelling is verbatim.

It seems to me you pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you support based on your own personal belief system. You fit the Constitution to YOU. Much in the same way people who try to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. It's highly distasteful to me when someone thinks that THEIR own personal belief system should be somehow incorporated into the Constitution.

Sounds like you just described your own narrow self, BH.

Yes, the Supreme Court could rule again on Roe. That's not going to happen. They could also reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. That's not going to happen either.

RvW won't get nixxed as long as that fool is in the WH. Neither will the 2nd, no matter who's in charge.

That a-hole will soon make it law to kill babies that survive abortion. His voting record proves it.

He is scum with no regard for human life. SCUM.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Because you're being ridiculous in you loosey-goosey interpretation of the Constitution.

It's not MY interpretation of the Constitution. It's the Supreme Court's. That's why I said your argument is with them.

You've already said that you support breaking drug laws according to your sophomoric interpretation.

I said no such thing. I said I think recreational drug use should be legal. I said nothing about breaking any laws.

You're a child when it comes to real life...
Sounds like you just described your own narrow self, BH.

Wait... "loosey-goosey", "sophomoric", "child", "narrow"???

Originally posted by jsobecky
And if you can refrain from your sniping, maybe we can continue this conversation. Otherwise, take it somewher else.

Who's sniping here? Child? You have no clue. Or is that the only way you know to get me to take it somewhere else so I'll stop making these great points against your argument? Why is it OK in your world for you to "snipe", but no one else? :shk:

You have no argument here. Sorry.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


When you come up with one of your "great points", let me know. I'm gonna go take a nap.

YOU are also the one who is imposing your beliefs on everyone else. If other people want a say in the freedom and democracy that is the United States of America, then you can try all you want to stop them, but you will not succeed