The Election...the way I see it

mbogo, I understand your position, but the question becomes when does it become murder of another human being, and when is it the removal of an unwanted growth and nobody's business but the person with the growth?

Some say it's as soon as the egg is introduced to the sperm cell, some say it's when the baby emerges from the womb.

Some even say it's murder of a potential child when one "spills their seed on the ground", or when a woman of child-bearing age intentionally lets her eggs be wasted! But most folks settled on the period somewhere between fertilization and birth. The Roe compromise put into law what the majority were saying, that if it's ended early, it's not objectionable to them, but if it's delayed past the point where the child could reasonably be expected to live, it's too late.

If we take the position that it's murder as soon as the egg is fertilized, then what about those eggs that don't get the chance to be fertilized, and those sperm cells that end up going down the shower drain? Those are potential people! They're alive, and they're human, aren't they. The question is, when do they become people, and therefore protected by law from being murdered? Should the government have the right to tell young men that onanism is murder and to prosecute them for killing all those sperm cells, or to require girls to start breeding as soon as they start producing eggs? Of course most people wouldn't hear of such an argument! But the court was tasked with finding some way to draw a line for legal purposes between the rights of the woman to control her own reproductive process, and the right of the unborn embryo. A development-based compromise made the abortions, that were happening anyway, legal if they were performed early enough. At the same time, it prevented them from being legal under the ruling at the time, if they were too late and the pregnancy was too far along. It even made the legal distinction a three-part thing, with a middle ground to allow for extenuating circumsrtances that might not be revealed early enough.

True, the court could have ducked out on the question. I think it's the duty of the court to rule on questions of peoples rights being denied, though. And the claim that the woman had the right to control whether or not to continue an unwanted pregnancy seemed to have at least enough weight to deserve an answer.

Was it "legislating from the bench" or simply doing the job the courts are supposed to do, interpreting the laws and judging their legality under the Constitution? It's sometimes hard to tell where one leaves off and the other begins. It was the ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education that said, back in '54 or so, that "separate but equal" schools weren't the same as a public educational system that was truly the same for kids of all colors. Was that also legislating from the bench, or was that an example of the court doing it's job in interpreting the intent of the Constitution? Maybe it depends on which side of the question you're on, the one the ruling favors, or the one it offends. I suppose those who brought the suit were very disappointed when the SC decided that the "right to bear arms" meant the citizens' right, not the state militia's. One man's "proper interpretation" is another man's "legislating from the bench".

When any question goes far enough through the courts to reach the Supreme Court, it probably has some reasonable argument for each side, else it would have been turned down for consideration. I don't always agree with their decisions, either, but I think they've been justified in making them in all the cases I've read of.

I take exception to your assertion that the GOP is a "big government" anti-freedom party. I do disagree with many provisions of the, so called Patriot Act, and feel there should be hell to pay for everyone, including Bush, who was a party to much of it-but the GOP is still much better than what the Dems offer. Want to talk anti-personal freedom? How about the dems constant attacks on our Second Amendment rights?

As for caring about whom is sleeping with whom-as a society’s moral compass goes, so goes it`s future. Homosexuality is no more a sin than adultery or fornication-yet, we don`t celebrate adultery or fornication-with the possible exception of Jerry Springer.

Like it or not, but a country’s moral fabric is a poignant indicator of that country’s future.

As Russ`s argument as to when exactly human life begins-Psalm 139: 13-16 NKJV

For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother`s womb.
I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they were all written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet, there were none of them.

And I know Russ, you will state that not everyone believes in God-but yet, He believes in everyone.

Tell yourself whatever you must to be ok-the FACT is, this country was founded by MORAL men, who relied on God for inspiration and strength. Even though some would attempt to state that Jefferson and Franklin were deists, that “logic” doesn`t hold water, as evident by the weight of the trust thrust on the Creator.

And the, so called, “God agenda” you`ve referred to as attacks on personal freedoms is quite a funny concept-even God himself doesn`t force Himself on anyone-every man has complete free will. If the thought of a group of men, humbly submitting to the Almighty God as servants of the public offends your sensibilities, I`m not sure how to advise you, as we live in a land of Christians, and certainly does not coerce you into any kind of contract with God.

If your references to “attacks on personal freedoms” are based on the public’s disgust with homosexuality, then, yes, the Christian Right is “guilty”. Homosexuality is a sin, just as adultery and fornication are, but by God`s grace, you`re still free to do whatever you choose. Do you need the public`s approval as well as your freedom to choose your path?

OK, I give up! How do you guys surround the quote you're answering with that box?

I can't find the magic word, and I've used almost all of them I know, except a few I hold in reserve for when I'm working on a Ford.

Hmmm....if this works, disregard the above.

Posted by bsutravis on Nov 9, 2006, 8:26am
Russ.....you are very entitled to your opinion......but how can you consider yourself a Conservative Republican and be pro-choice & pro-gay marriage? Those are two of the bedrocks that make someone a Conservative versus a Republican. If anything, I'd say you are a Moderate Republican.....but definately not a Conservative.