Thanks for making my point. There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. The words do not exist. Congress doesn't print and distribute Bibles nor have they established a religion. Which is quite evident by your own posts depicting your disdain for Christians in general. Seems like the Constitution is working quite well in your favor, as it should. Still, somehow, you are disappointed. How shocking! You forgot to mention nazis! How could you forget to make such an important observation without acknowledging nazis? I'm perfectly happy with America
Then why don't you debate my non-religious post (below link)? My 'religious' post was just a response to an assertion that failed have a question mark. It's not very becoming to use that as a red herring, especially given the context I was using it ie it was explanation of possibilities. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1088389&postcount=291
I think you guys would have a heart attack if you lived in America when it was founded. Other than being a place where congress met, the place they debated was also used as a church on appropriate days. Jefferson really came up with the idea of a "wall of separation between church and state" , but I don't believe he had the same interpetation that some liberals have today. It really wasn't meant to be as pushy, as to say you couldn't pray at schools...that's an extreme variant of modern day atheists. And as GTech says it's not in the Constitution (the words 'separation of church and state'), it was merely a phrase and thought of Thomas Jefferson. The closest you get to that is the 'establishment clause' of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" "This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general." Not quite the logical connection that is asserted so often.
You know what? I know exactly how you think in this issue. You think that it's the womens rights to murder their unborned kids. And your suggestion that everyone should decide on their own wether they want to abort or not isn't so great as you think because it will not protect the right to live for the unborned kids. However, I'm pleased to know that you agree with my viewpoint. That double-thinking is cute Democrates himself said nothing about protecting the minority and I don't give a shit about all those aristocrats that tries to change definitions. However, I think it's a great idea. Even if you don't agree on the true and original definition on democracy, I don't understand why you think it's completely incorrect.
It can be a permanent solution to a temporary bad situation. Too many family members and friends are more likely to encourage an abortion rather than saying: you should have the baby, I will support you as best as I can.
Latehorn, your rude comments are quite juvenile. If you're going to make an arguement, be factual not emotional. Pro-choice people do not believe abortion is murder. If that's what you believe, great. However, I don't think you should tell people what they are thinking, when you are so far off the mark it's ridiculous.
Don't worry, you get used to it. I quite like debating with GTech, at least he makes some sense. I'm unsure when reading Latehorns post if I should feel pity or just laugh
I knew/know people that came here and learned english within a year; and in some occasions they spoke better english than most people living here.
3: Could you answer the questions I have in here, and adress my arguement? http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1088389&postcount=291
Abortion isn't always done in selfishness. If you're a poverty stricken crack addict who doesn't know who the father of the fetus inside you is, aborting might just be done in sympathy. Some people want to spare another baby from being raised in conditions they would never wish upon themselves. Do you consider tissue inside a woman's body, that has no functioning heart or brain, a human? I don't. Are you talking about a 8 and a half month old baby inside a mother in comparison with a baby outside a mother, or a 1-week old fetus?
Don't know what you are referring to. I proved my points and you havn't answered them. Who is juvenile?
"But when they unite into one entity with 46 chromosomes, the result is a human being. This is a medical fact. Genetically, the fertilized ovum is a human being, with its own lifelong, characteristic code and identity. From this point on, it is simply a matter of its growth, not of its kind." That's a doctor,.... although I don't see it exactly that way...sometimes I question if I want to see it anyway. Again, a doctor's view. "Furthermore, babies in the womb are conscious. By four to six weeks after conception, they have their own brain waves, which they will keep for life. The absence of a brain wave is considered a sign of death. And as early as three months after conception, babies react to stimuli. They can consciously sense pressure and pain." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- At 20 days the foundations of the brain, spinal cords, and nervous system are laid. At 24 days the heart begins to beat! At week 4 arm and leg buds are beginning. The baby's muscles are developing along the future spine. At 30 days the baby has grown 10,000 times to 1/4 of an inch. The baby's brain has human proportions. At week 5 the pituitary gland is forming in the brain. The baby's little mouth, ears and nose are taking shape. At week 6 the baby's fingers and toes are starting to appear. The baby's heart energy output is 20% that of an adult's. Brain waves can be recorded and the baby is about 3/4 of an inch. The skeleton has now formed. The baby's brain coordinates the movement of muscles and organs. Reflex responses have begun. If the baby is a little boy his penis will start forming. Mommy misses her second period. At week 7 weeks the lips are sensitive to touch and the ears may resemble family patterns. At week 8 (2 months) the little baby is no longer called an embryo. Now the little baby is a fetus (the Latin term used to describe the infant in the womb). The little baby's heart is beating sturdily and every organ is present. The stomach is producing digestive juices. The liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are functioning and taste buds are forming. The baby is about 1 1/2 inches and weighs a gram (1/30th oz.) At 8 1/2 weeks the baby's unique fingerprints are being engraved. The eyelids and the palms of the hands are now sensitive to touch. At 8-10 weeks babies can feel pain At 9 weeks the little baby sucks her thumb. She can also bend her fingers around an object. Her fingernails are forming. At 10 weeks the baby can squint, swallow, pucker up her brow and frown. The little baby is now 2 1/2 inches and weighs about 1/2 of an ounce. The baby's muscles continue to develop. At 11 weeks the baby can smile and make other complex facial expressions. The baby also urinates. At 12-13 weeks (3 months) the baby can kick her mommy, turn, curl her toes, make a fist, turn her head, bend her wrists, open her mouth and press her lips together. The child's gender is now visible. The baby practices breathing. And the baby's vocal chords are formed (but without air their cries can not be heard). The baby now measures 3 1/2 inches and weighs 1 1/2 ounces.
Rick - if you want I can find a "doctor" who will tell you that every weight loss drug on the planet is "safe"... one who will tell you his new fitness pills are "safe"... many doctors will say anything for a dollar. So that really holds your entire point here..null. Who is this doctor? Is he a specialist on abortion? Or is he a jesus freak? So what about before 4-6 weeks? No brain waves... no life.
The fact that most all of you agree that an exception where you would allow abortion is rape, potential death of the mother, etc. yet you're having a conversation about whether the woman should have the right frankly puzzles me. Are some of you trying to make the point that a woman should have the right but ONLY if she's raped or faces potential death? Ridiculous to say the least. How do you then determine whether she was raped or not? Shall we depend on our flawless court system to determine that? Our impeccable medical profession who never makes mistakes? Either they have the right or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
Well an unborned invidual life is more important than the life of the mother IMHO. The unborned has never got a chance to live while the mother already have experienced the life XX years. If someone disagrees, can you explain why? Why is the life of mother more important than the unborned invidual?
No the life of the mother and the good of society is more important then the fetus. Why ? Because the Mother is a full person where the fetus is cluster of cells. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is latehorn and adopt an unwanted baby? According to latehorn if a dad rapes his daughter she should have to have the kid, right? Some lady gets raped and is impregnated she should have to carry it right latehorn? So she can see how much resemblance the baby has to to its father?