XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime
XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: rrufiange@cfl.rr.com
"Moorehead Johnson" wrote in message
news:b752db1f.0312040748.7357d2dc@posting.google.com...
> Ivan Gowch wrote in message
news:<2ccssvo42fe8fpak1ffgqvdq44kq2v2eu8@4ax.com>...
> Uh, for someone who obviously has never READ the U.S. Constitution,
> you are awful uppity, aren't you? - FREE CLUE - there is NO right to
> an abortion under the Constitution, you nutcase. NONE. Got that? The
> "RIGHT" to an abortion was MADE UP by an activist majority of Supreme
> Court Justices who decided to invent a right where none existed
> previously in the now infamous Roe v. Wade court case. It is bad law.
> It is wrong. It is immoral. It is a mistake that will be corrected,
> eventually.
I wasn't aware that morality was the basis for whether or not a right was
recognized.
As for whether the right to have an abortion is wrong, I wouldn't know. I
do know, however, that reversing that decision would allow someone to have
an unfair legal advantage over another. You can best believe that,
overturning abortion rights, the "masses" wouldn't stop there. You agree
that, under certain situations, abortion is correctly and justifiably
applied, so why can't you treat a woman like a valuable and intelligent
member of society, and let her make a choice for herself whether or not she
wishes to bring a child into the world?
What if this woman had PROTECTED sex,. and the condom, or other birth
control methods used, failed?
Without the safeguard of personal choice, she'd have to prove to an already
overworked courtroom, that she wasn't intending to conceive a child, merely
have sex with a man, and even then, it'd be open to interpretation. Society
would be far more draconian.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
