Re: A question about Dungy
posted at 6/23/2009 7:06 AM EDT
"Why is it you want to allow women the right to choose, but not the American people? Couldn't women be making stupid choices when it comes to abortion? Sounds like a double standard." - 347 Because when the dumb a ss American people make a choice it effects all of us and when a single women makes a choice about what to do with her body it effects her and only her thats why. If I have a daughter and she gets knocked up at age 18 and wants to have it aborted she shouldnt be denied that choice by 200 million morons who didnt have all the facts. I would rather have 8 people who are up to speed on all the facts and will make a judgment based on the facts and not their own personal bias then 200 million people who make snap judgments based on the way the feel and not the facts. I am not saying all the facts support my side either what I am saying is it doesnt matter which side the facts support because most of the dumb a ss american people wouldnt do the research anyway.
Posted by MVPkilla
Killer: Where to begin?
1. If your daughter gets an abortion, it doesn't affect only her. In fact, it affects one other person far more than it affects her. The baby gets the death penalty for your daughter's inability to keep her knees together.
2. There has developed, over the last several decades, a liberal approach to getting things done in government, one that has sought to bypass the elected representatives in our constitutional republican system, and that is, getting things done through the courts that would never pass by the will of the people
expressed through their elected representatives. Thomas Jeffereson foresaw the possible abuses in the judicial branch. It's tricky with them because they are appointed for life and do not have to answer to the voters. That is why you see Senate Democrats waging war on Republican SC nominees (the Robert Bork episode was one of the sorriest ever), while GOP Senators, for the most part, believe that elections have consequences, and that presidents should pretty much get the justices they nominate. That said, through the efforts of McCain and a few others, W got a couple of fine ones through the process.
3. Specifically regarding abortion: Eminent Harvard law professors Alan Derschowitz (sp?) and Lawrence Tribe, both strongly pro-choice, have stated publicly that Roe v. Wade is bad law, primarily because the decision was made up of whole cloth and not from the Constitution, which does not grant anything like a right to abortion. In fact, if you read the majority decision, you'll find that they don't even know where for sure in the Constitution they found the right for a mother to put a hit on her child! Derschowitz has said that one of the reasons that Roe v. Wade is a bad thing is that it took a highly-charged issue like abortion, one which the Constitution does not address, out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives.
4. Nothing in the Constitution voids anything in the Declaration of Independence, which is our national birth certificate. The Declaration famously states some "self-evident" truths that the Founders recognized, such as that "all men are created (not born) equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unaliable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness." Three unaliable rights are listed here, and without the first one, the other two are moot.
5. This issue has a personal slant for me. I was conceived out of wedlock. In 1947 the cultural norms and pressures were a little different. I think that had the same situation presented itself today, I would have been given a death sentence. Back then the verdict was a shotgun marriage. Did my parents have a tough marriage? Yes, very much so. But my younger brothers and sister and I all appreciate the fact that we were not "terminated" before we began.
6. You folks in Mass. should understand this better than most, in that your Supreme Court, against the will of the people, ordered the legislature to create that great oxymoronic institution known as "same sex marriage." I think Mitt was asleep at the switch on this one, as he, representing the executive branch of Mass. govt., should have stepped in on the basis of separation of powers, and rescinded the judicial order.