Karen,

I'd agree. Then there are others that try to change the constitution to fit their agenda as well. It's interesting to me that people hold the constitution up like it is some religious document inspired by God that should never be challenged. The fact is that the constitution was written by humans several hundred years ago who had no way to know how people would try to twist it into justifying anything that anyone wants to do. In my opinion, they would have never envisioned their document being used to justify things such as abortion, gay marriage, internet porn, obscenities, etc.

"Thank goodness well-minded citizens have held onto the fact that our forefathers wrote our Constitution and Declaration of Independence to be for all the people, all the time, not some of the people, some of the time."

Our modern plight of racial strife is a direct result of the forefathers exluding the black man from constitutional rights. Had the issue been dealt with 225 years ago there'd be no Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons or Skip Alston's today.

At the same time, had this been an issue 225 years ago there would probably have never been a constitution either, but that's another issue altogether.

I agree, YD. I think your argument can also be used to say that they would not have used the constitution to ban gay marriages, or abortions, or obscenities, etc.

AMEN, Carol!

Carol,

What's interesting to me is that the same people who use the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for support of gay marriage can't see why that would also apply to unborn children.

However, I agree with you that they probably would not have used the constitution for that purpose.

YD,

Since fetuses are UNBORN, they are not protected by the constitution. Our Constitution protects the rights of those already outside the womb. If you unplugged an appliance from the electrical source, and it did not run on batteries, would you still expect it to work? Until a woman gives birth, the fetus is still part of that woman. And already being a living, breathing, independent entity, that WOMAN has the right to expect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness whether you like it or not. You, being a living, breathing, man outside the uterus, have the same rights.

Yvonne,

That seems to be more of an after-the-fact interpretation of the constitution. I can see the logic behind it but I'm not sure I would agree with it.

I'm not a gambler, but i'd be willing to wager that Yvonne is not a parent. Very difficult to understand how anyone who is a parent expressing her beliefs. I felt pretty much the same way, I suppose - until the moment I was told my wife was pregnant. From that second on, that was my child - not a lump of cells unworthy of protection. Yvonne seems to feel that the child's rights are secondary to the mother's. Wonder if the father's rights also trump the baby's? Ooops! That's right, the baby has no rights. I disagree with that notion, and that is what seems to be lost on those who argue that abortion is a valid method of birth control.

Nick it is amazing when one discovers that they are going to be a parent. I remember playing "flashlight" with my daughter while she was still in the womb. She certainly responded to light and even earlier to sound. There were very different reactions to different types of music. I enjoyed this "little lump" long before she was born. Of course I knew she was not a "little lump" but a viable living individual. It never ceases to amaze me how others can not understand life exist even at this stage.

Nic,
I'm a parent and I agree with Yvonne wholeheartedly. It is very entertaining to watch the right to lifers squirm when confronted with adopting "crack babies" and mentally ill children. Oh and my favorite inconsistency is when right to lifers oppose stem cell research to save lives, or when they support war. If they value life so much, why does their concern end at birth?

As far as religion goes, the Jewish faith values the life of the mother over the life of the unborn child in life or death matters, and that is quite an old faith traditiion. Saying Yvonne must not have children is ridiculous. Guess you are looking for ways to justify your own beliefs.

Produce,
Does your daughter remember all the (fantasy music should come in now)times you played flashlight with her? Didn't think so, but don't get me wrong, I have NEVER doubted your own imagination.

Sorry Demon, but I can't help you with your inconsistancies. Stem cell research - fine with me. War - I'm against it - until I'm attacked, of course. Then I like to live by General George Patton's mandate to make the other guy die for his country, while I live for mine (and yes, you can take that as far as you'd like. If a mugger attacks me or mine, he'd better be ready to fight for his life). I really don't need to look for ways to justify my beliefs, and I certainly don't mind that you think my position is ridiculous. (By the way, I didn't say Yvonne must not have children, I said I would wager she doesn't. Quite a difference there.) I have yet to see a post from you that makes much sense, and in most of them you try to land a personal insult at the end. I'm consistant in my beliefs, just as you are in your posts! I made no reference to religion in my original post, so I don't feel the need to respond to that part of your reply.

Nic,

Hope you didn't wager anything of value. I have three children and five grandchildren that I love more than life. My parental status has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs regarding a woman's rights. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it does. Just because I do not agree with you gives you no right to question my integrity. And your insinuation that it does says a lot about your character.

Nope, Yvonne, no wager made. And I did not question your integrity, I merely said I don't understand how a parent can feel that an unborn child has no rights. Your leaps would win Olympic Gold!

Nic,
It's okay that you don't agree with me. Just don't go out there on that limb with Produce and his flashlight!

Yvonne,
Carry on, girl!

I am constantly amazed that people believe that an unborn person has no rights and, by extension, is not really a person or worthy of protection under the constitution. So, when is a person a person? Do they magically become a person when their head emerges? I am always amazed at people that can make distinctions that fine. No, I don't believe that it is accurate to say that an unborn child is just an appendage to it's mother. It has it's own life. It's own brain. It's own heart. It depends upon its mother for sustenance until it is born, but it is not and never was an appendage of its mother. It would be different than it's mother's appendix, you see.

Now, I would suppose that those same people would agree that illegal immigrants to out country have certain human rights in this country, because they have been born, somewhere in the world. And, to say that those people have rights under the consititution, whereas an unborn child of parents living in this country and are citizens, do not...well, that is just astounding to me.

"So, when is a person a person?"

I shudder to think of how many reams of paper and how many pixels there are devoted to arugments surrounding that question.

"My parental status has absolutely nothing to do with my beliefs regarding a woman's rights. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it does."

Nice. As a stepparent and a father-to-be in 2 short months, let me second Yvonne's contention.

Denzien,
Carry on.
Thanks!

DemonDeacon, I'll leave that to my wife. She's overly qualified. :)

Well, since you can;t dedfine when a person is a person, Denzien, I guess we can let it go. It's obvious that you don't really know the answer.

It's also nice to know that you are expecting in two months a part of your wife, according to Yvonne. What part do you think it will be?

Hey, Demon, how's the classes coming along over at Wake now that it is summer? Kinda slow? I guess professors have a lot of spare time.

You are barking up the wrong tree, ORR. You may not be as clever as you think you are.

You have made a woman into nothing but a womb, a baby factory, with your sanctimonious assertions. If you had any respect, whatsoever, for a woman as an individual with individual rights, you would not be so quick to judge.

It is not your opinion or the expression of such that I take issue with. The problem lies in the fact you feel the need to dinigrate those who have a different opinion. Can you not express yourself without making judgement and getting on your moral high horse?

Yes, a woman's rights trump a fetus's right for fetuses have no rights. It is not a matter of when life begins (usually based on religious beliefs rather than fact) but when the fetus is no longer a fetus. When it emerges from the body of it's mother, it has the same rights as the mother. While this seems a harsh way of putting it, this is the law.

I have never had an abortion and don't know that I could have ever made that decision. The basic difference in me and you, ORR, is that I do not believe it is my business to make that kind of decision for anyone else. I believe that is a very private decision and should be made (ultimately) by the one being affected by it the most, the woman. Sure the wishes of the father (donor) should be included in the decision. But it is not your business to interfere unless you are said father.

I may not agree with a woman's decision to have an abortion but I respect her right to make her own decision. Just as I respect your right to decide what you do in regards to your own body.

And if you removed religious belief and moral judgement, what sense does it make to enslave one gender but not another? That was the whole point of the letter, keep religion out of politics and stop trying to make our Constitution fit your own personal agenda. We are all equal under the law and that's the way it should stay!

I am always amazed at some women's ferocity in fighting for their right to kill their unborn children. What's next, the right to kill your born children because they are incovenient or troublesome?

Yvonne,
Great points! Too bad some men feel they must hold dominion over others. My experience has been that most of these men are conflicted in more ways than abortion. Example: If their daughter were raped, they would sign on to the exceptions clause. If their daughter were raped by, a black man, they would already have had the abortion. If they say they do not believe in abortion under ANY circumstance, then I would respect their opinion. Otherwise, it is all about power and/or their misguided religious beliefs.

So, Oak: If you had a daughter who was 14 and was raped by a homeless sex offender, who happened to have an IQ of 50, what would you choose? Be honest with yourself and with us.
If you do not have a daughter, pretend it is your wife and she became pregnant.

Shhhhesh, Yvonne, you get defensive! What it boils down to is this: Yvonne & Demon do not see an unborn child as an individual being, and I do. You won't change my mind, I won't change yours. And since the children and grandchildren you love more than life itself happened to come along at a time convenient to you, they have their own minds intact as well. I hope they have more compassion than their ancestors.

DD,

Thanks. You are right. It is about control and domination. So sad.

ORR,

It always amazes me how ferociously some people will defend their right to control the choices of others. If only half that energy was spent trying to make the lives of the children already born a little better, how wonderful it would be!

Nic,

So you are into mind reading now? What medium do you use? I would suggest a change as, so far, it's not working too well for you.

Of my three children, only the last one was planned. The first two could not have come at a worse time. But I love them no less than the last one.

I taught my children to think for themselves. They make decisions I do not agree with at times. But as long as it is their decision to make, I accept and respect their right to make it. If it is not their decision to make, ie, a decision that is for someone else and is none of their business, I will speak out as I am now.

I really could care less whether you think it is your right to make decisions for me or any other woman. I KNOW it is not. Women are equal to you and therefore have equal rights. So do yourself a favor and accept it.

BTW, you have only assumed what DD and I think about fetuses. And you know what they say about ASSumptions.

"It always amazes me how ferociously some people will defend their right to control the choices of others"

Bingo. That is the heart of the matter.

"It's obvious that you don't really know the answer."

I have an opinion. Just like you. The "truth" of the matter, I believe is within the beholder, thus my comment "bingo" above.

Correct, not my place to make to a decision for you or anyone else. Just as it is not yours to make a decision for another person. The difference is, I see the unborn baby as a person, and you do not. I feel someone needs to speak for the unborn, you do not. As I said, I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has written the law to allow the murder of the unborn for the convenience of the mother, and that makes your position the law of the land, for the time being. Hopefully, we will see that changed soon.

BYW, I believe "soon" will be sooner than most people think. Rulings to allow people to be prosecuted for a double-murder when they kill a pregnant woman makes me very hopeful that the law will soon recognize that an unborn baby is, well, a baby. I still won't be able to tell you what to do, and vice versa. But murder based on age will no longer be legal.

ORR,
I think Yvonne gave you some great advice.

Would you be willing to pay for the rearing of the children being aborted as fetuses?

Is your committment just to make sure all babies are born, or is your concern about the child who lives in abject poverty, or was born an addict? What about children who are born into homes of abuse and neglect? Are you willing to support the welfare dollars that would be spent on these fetuses when taken to term, or will you come out with another "moral" decision dictating that babies are not yours or the government's concern?

Nic, I beg to differ on this point, "...Supreme Court has written the law to allow the murder of the unborn for the convenience of the mother,...." The Supreme Court DOES NOT write the laws of the land. The Supreme Court INTERPRETS the laws of the land (Constitution). Therefore, the Supreme Court only forced the country to allow for the legal means for a woman to end a pregnancy. Check the history if I am not believed on the role of the Supreme Court.

That is where politics has been woven into the Courts. When a judge makes a ruling to goes contrary to what one group likes/dislikes, then politics ensues. Often, this is to the detriment of all. Remember, a judge is just making an honest interpretation of the existing law, not rewriting law as some claim and would have the masses believe.

Shalom

Darryl - You are correct, or course. But my choice of words was deliberate. A Supreme Court decision is the law, until it is overturned by a future court. Many Supreme Court decisions have been overturned in the past, and it is hoped by many that Roe v. Wade will be as well. I am not scholarly enough to know on what basis the court decided that an abortion is a constitutional right. I do sense, however, that the country is going the other way. As I pointed out, there have been several cases where a person was charged - and convicted - of murder for the killing of an unborn baby (Scott Peterson is an example - first degree murder for killing his wife, second degree murder for killing their child). I realize there are major differences of opinion, and my original post was only meant to point out that it is very difficult for me to understand how anyone who is a parent can feel that an unborn person is not -- a person. Before I was a father, I felt pretty much the same way, despite Yvonne's rantings. Women and men have equal rights - of course. I just think the baby has the same right to life, and she apparently doesn't. No law, or interpretation, is going to change my mind, or hers.

Boy if you don't think the liberal judges are taking over our country, just go up to the editorial "Alienation Law Offers Spouses Compensation" and read Dan's post! Some judge turned his crank and he feels wronged! (LOL!)