ScottyRo

When I mentioned child molesting above I was not trying to say that they are similar acts, but they are related in that many people feel that they are both immoral acts. Thus, I tried to make the point that if one of these \"immoral\" groups were to change the rules as they have always been, then the other should be able at some point to change it as well.

The definition of marriage is simple. So simple that Webster\'s missed it because he (they) didn\'t feel the need to define it fully. This planet has thousands of years of \"marriage\" history and in none of it that I know of has there ever before been a marriage that included two people of the same sex. Further, Louisiana in its civil code defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Certainly, there could be some obscure homosexual tribe out there on some other continent, but I don\'t think that changes anything.

I also think that it would be nice if we could handle this issue on a state level. Unfortunately, we cannot let each state handle this issue because of the \"full faith and credit\" clause. Again, Louisiana\'s civil code states that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus, if Mississippi were to allow gay marriages then Louisiana would not have a choice, but to do so or else defy the US Constitution. In the end it would be MS changing the laws of LA by proxy.

Nomtoc

Child molesters and rapists should all be euthanized.

WhoDat

Now this is one big bag of worms to open. One note before I start: All of the candidates in the election are Pro Life. Kerry and Edwards are both Pro Lifers from what I\'ve seen in the past.

That said - I do not disagree that a child should have a right to life. The problem is, when is a child a child? In essence, when a child is conceived it is little more than a cyst. The question becomes when does life begin? I can\'t answer that, and until someone can with a good deal of supporting evidence, I find it inheirently unAmerican to limit her civil liberties.

One other note: A President\'s opinion about social issues is, in most cases, of little conseqence. He\'s not making laws or ruling on judicial proceedings. Far more important are the beliefs of the Supreme Court Justices.

\"Excuses, excuses, excuses. That’s all anyone ever makes for the New Orleans Saints’ organization.\" - Eric Narcisse


\"Being a Saints fan is almost like being addicted to crack,\" he said.[i]\"You know you should stop, but you just can\'t.\"

saintfan

I\'ve managed to avoid this \'til now, but I absolutely positively agree with you whodat...110%. It\'s not that I don\'t think a child has a right to life, but as you said, when it begins is up for debate, and for that reason I can\'t see where I have ANY right whatsoever to tell someone I don\'t know who\'s circumstances I am totally unaware of what she can or cannot do regarding HER body. That there are people out there who think they can angers me more than I could possibly relate.

Kerry Sucks tho...not enough room to bring it all up here. Thank GOD he\'s not our president, and God willing he never will be. Kerry is Jane Fonda minus the breasts, but he might as well have a pair if you know what I mean. We presently have the ability to defend our country, and I\'d prefer we keep it that way.

C'mon Man...

ScottyRo

Let\'s break it down like this. Nobody has an abortion without knowing that she is pregnant. A human woman can only be naturally impregnated with a human child. We do not need to know when life begins. All we need to accept is that by the time a mother knows of the pregnancy (2-3 weeks after conception at the earliest) the mass of cells that once was simply a fertilized egg is now developing into a human child. It is obviously alive and growing at that point. Sure, not all are viable at that point and certainly cannot live outside the womb, but it is living nonetheless.

So, let\'s not even talk about the perhaps questionable, early on cases. Let\'s talk about something like partial birth abortion. It\'s an obvious child, only very young and undeveloped. Yet, you somehow consider the killing of this child to be inherently American because the woman got to choose? (For more on choice see below). The deal is that we\'re not aware when life begins. I think it\'s irrelevant. But, why not err on the side of caution considering the relatively small inconvenience to the woman?

As I said, when life begins is irrelevant to the discussion. It should be obvious to anyone willing to admit the truth to himself or herself that this is true.

Saintfan, I am not asking here for the right to tell women what I want them to do with thier bodies. I am suggesting the government should do so. I am shocked that soomeone who holds an opinion such as mine would anger you to such a degree. As if the injustice is to the woman.

The woman has all the choices she could want before the pregnancy. She could choose not to have sex. She could choose not to have unprotected sex. After the pregnancy has begun, she can choose not to keep the child after she gives birth. Remember, this is a mere nine-months of her life compared to an average of 70+ years of life for the child. There are plenty of couples wanting to adopt children and she may actually decide she wants to keep the child despite the hardship raising a child in difficult circumstances might bring.

The absolute worst argument you could bring as far as I\'m concerned is that it is HER BODY. What a joke! In the grand scheme of life the inconvenience to her and her body is really quite small when compared to the sacrifice the child is having to make.

The problem is that the subject isn\'t personal enough to you. You live in a society that desensitizes you to murder by portraying it on television many times everyday. It\'s ok. That dead guy will be on a new show next week so \"no problem\". Think about your children or your nieces or nephews and consider them being killed in the womb simply because they were going to cause their mother an inconvenience. Your angry with me?

I do feel sorry for the woman who gets in the position of being pregnant when she did not plan or want to be. I wish medical technology was such that she could have the child removed and placed within another woman without damaging the child. Some people may even be against that, but I find it much better than killing the child.

Saintfan, this isn\'t really about telling woman what to do with her body. It is simply about saving the life of a child and, unfortunately, the mother\'s body is part of it whether she likes it or not. Saving the life of children is a noble cause. You shouldn\'t get angry about this. If you\'re going to remain pro-choice, you could at least feel sadness for the consequences of the procedure.

ScottyRo

What definition states that Bush should not speak out about his religious beliefs? If you mean \"church and state\", see my argument above.

In what way is Bush reducing gay civil liberties? In Louisiana, marriage is already defined as between a man and a woman. The marriage amendment would only keep some judge who feels that it should be changed (maybe even because he\'s been paid to feel that it should be changed) from changing that. That\'s not reduction. That\'s status quo.

The most right thing you\'ve said on this thread is about the Supreme Court. Long gone are the days when the Court actually interpreted the law. They are now policy makers with agendas and it\'s a shame. The funny thing about them is...once upon a time this country was founded to get away from European oppression and rules. Yet, now the Court consistently looks toward Europe in order to determine how things should be rather than on our own history and precedent.

canucksaint

I don\'t really want to get into the pro life, pro choice debate as I\'m sure we can all argue till we\'re red in the face, however I do have a question or two:
What about the cases (small minority) that the woman doesn\'t have a choice? How about protected sex, which fails?

I\'m sure you\'re refering to a specific case, as I can\'t think of more opposites than Europe and the USA. Did you want to clarify?

saintfan

I\'m with ya Canuck...this sort of thing can go on forever since, as Whodat indicated, when life begins is debatable. The thing that floors me is that there are people who think that they, or the government for christs sake, should have the power to make that decision FOR SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!! If it EVER comes to that in America we\'re all in trouble.

ScottyRo

America is already in trouble becuase it allows the killing of unborn children. It somehow finds allowing a woman to choose to kill a growing human child preferable to letting the baby live.

Because this is such a huge issue with many caveats, I\'d prefer to only debate the simple case involving unprotected sex, first. My opinion is that, protection or not, you should be well enough aware that there is a chance of becoming pregnant by having sex. Therefore, if you accept the risks and have sex, you should accept the consequences.

Does anyone deny that even just a month after conception the thing that was once just a mass of cells is a growing child? It\'s very, very small, but at that stage it is already taking its human shape.

There are some specific examples, but I was refering generally to the attitude of the Justices of late. I can and will try to find some specific examples of this. I too think that America and Europe are very opposite, but I have read (a couple years back) of instances where the Justices were becoming more likely to look at European law before they rule on a law here in the States. I just don\'t think they should.

I understand and agree that sometimes it is needed to look at the results of a European law on its people. I just want to avoid the \"Europe allows it so we should too\" mentality.

I do understand that this abortion issue is a difficult one. And it does involve the rights of people to choose what is right for themselves and their children. However, the government is already involved in regulating this type of thing. Here in Louisiana, as I understand it, if you threaten to kill yourself and you\'re taken seriously, the government can place you in a hospital to prevent that. Also, if you ignore your child\'s illness or don\'t seek proper medical care, you can be subject to criminal charges for such act even if based on religious grounds. Thus, banning abortions wouldn\'t give the government a power it doesn\'t have over people, it would simply extend that protection to unborn children. Most states use the \"best interests of the child\" standard to determine every single issue brought before a court in which a child is involved. The parents rights are secondary to this. Why should that not apply to abortion of an unborn child? It cannot legally be said that a person, no matter what the circumstances, would have been better off having never been born.

[Edited on 16/7/2004 by ScottyRo]

ScottyRo

Btw, I just want to thank everyone for tackling this issue and others on this thread in such a civil matter. THAT is truly American (democratic) to allow an open and honest discussion without trying to bring it down to the level of a brawl. Thanks!

We can disagree on an issue so emotionally charged as abortion and still be friends, right?

[Edited on 16/7/2004 by ScottyRo]