I support gay marrige, my sister is a lesbian, but I dont agree with the Massachusetts courts overturning restrictions to gay marrige via judicial fiat. I would vote “yes” if there were refferenda to recognize gay marrige. I think the people should decide whether homosexual relationships have the same legal status at heteros, or whether they are more like polygamy or incestuous relationships. But thats a whole other thread.

Our constitution is living and beathing only in that you can ammend it. That requires legislation, which requires democratic political action.

Congrats do you feel better that your not trying to pussy foot around what you mean. Now, deal with the fact that there is a third Branch to our system that is empowered to interpret the constitution as a living document that needs to change with time to remain viable and pertinent to society.

Now that you’re willing to speak more directly about how you feel on the subject, admit that if Supreme Court were to say that a fertilized egg was a person and that it deserves all the same rights as anyone else, that you would be praising their decision and NOT say that they’re legislating from the bench.

The key is that I will try to persuade them through political action, that is what a democratic society does. When the supreme court issues a Judicial mandate (as a dictator does) that citizens cannot illicit change through elections, legeslation, or refferendum, then my voice is effectively obsolete and persuasion is useless. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned in order for any of us to vote.

If Roe was overturned, and my governor issued a refferendum regarding criminalising abortion, I’m sure it would fail and my state would continue with legal abortions as it has since 1973. I would be dissapointed, but satisfied by the political process, and try to convince more people to vote “yes” the next time there is a refferendum.

Why would killing babies in California be better to you than killing babies in Georgia? Making it a states issue would not quell your thirst on this issue. Say what you mean man. quit dancing.

This statement seems to say people have inherent moral values that are undenyable. But it does mention God, so I guess your right. In order to be true to the spirit of america and the separation of church and state, human beings must not have the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Since the Catholic church is opposed to the death penalty, the only constitutional option must be to enforce the death penalty in every state, else we would live in a “theocracy” am I right?

C.S. Lewis books and Star-Wars lunchboxes should be banned from public schools because those stories teach Judeo-Christian moral values, right?

Often times, moral truth’s proposed by secular philosophers like our founding fathers overlap with certain religious creed. I dont think you have to believe in the “Creator” part of the declaration of independence in order to agree that we have inalienable rights.

Besides, you claim that Human life begins at understanding within the brain. Well, where is the stone tablet that the rule is carved into, and what mountain did you carry it down from? Your claim does not apear to be self-evident (so obvious it doesn’t need proof), nor does my claim of inherent moral value. So lets vote on it.

I like sex.

“signs of consciousness” wrong kind of consciousness.

Second, When the mother’s life is at stake, surely there must be stipulation in any law that limits abortion, to give favor to the life (or bodily functions for that matter) in case of danger. There are criterea, such as the capability to experience suffering or to fear death, that allow us to make moral judgements regarding the choice to save only one of two lives.

Third, most reasonable pro-choice advocates give the criterea of self-awareness or conciousness as sufficient definition of human life. I have problems with this assumption. What about the fact that signs of conciousness apear within the brain before viability? Others argue that infant children are no more self aware than primative animals; can their lives be terminated like an unwanted pet? Do chimpanzees who have brains developed like 4 year-old children have the same rights as children? What about the mentally handicapped or comatose?

I see nothing wrong with the position that a human organism has inherent moral value, simply because it is human.

I’m not running off. It is a fine line between fetus and a viable life, I grant you that. and science can push viability back to the point from fertilization a human is viable. the question is then, when do we stop? Do we go as far as to say that sex can only be used for reproduction because there is always the possibility of creating a life inherent in the act of sex? I realize that I have reduced it to the point of ridicule, but it is necessary.

Human life is precious, but sometimes abortion of life is best for the mother and the fetus, sometimes it is better for the mother and sometimes its better for the fetus… the combinations can be extended to family, society, and mankind. Should a mother have to carry a child to term if it endangers her life? No. Should the mother have to carry to term the child of a rape? No.

Life begins at understanding. Understanding is held within the brain. A cluster of cells does not have a brain. It has cells that work like brains, but not brains. It might react to stimuli, but it can not understand the stimuli. Potential for understanding is not the same as actually understanding and developing thoughts based on that understanding.

read this rather objective article on ectogenesis:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000867.html

There is nothing inherently or exclusively religious obout the pro-life argument. Nowhere in the bible does it say “though shalt not commit abortion” You can’t simply write this off as religion and then run away from the debate. Determining what is life and what is death when there is such a grey area is required by secular governments to maintain law and order, otherwise there would be no need for Roe v Wade in the first place.

“I have no concern for a couple of cells that cluster together.” You guys have such a clear idea on what does NOT constitute human life, so you tell me, in your opinion: What specifically do you regard as criteria that DOES define human life and not just a cluster of cells?

Quit saying your concerned for the rights of an unborn “human being”. just like with evolution the christian righties realized they lose on religious and moral grounds, so you try to mask it in pseudo science. You, noodles are concerned about one thing… That sinless human soul that is trapped in the womb of a sinful mother. Admit it.

Precisely. Deciding what constitutes human life is clearly a political issue and that is why judges should not have the authority to advocate a political position and make it into law. That is what our legislature is for, that is why we have elections so our representatives make the laws on behalf of the american public.

Judged do not have the autority to make laws, they have the authority to adjudicate specific cases based on existing laws(created by legislature), during which, these existing laws may be overturned if they are found to be in violation of the constitution.

In Roe, The supreme court decided that the state law banning abortion at that time was unconstitutional because it was in violation of the 4th amendment.

They interpreted that the constitution provided a right to privacy derived from “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” which is perfectly fine when applied to abortions, IF you regard the unborn child as a mere body part or a parasitic organism, morally equivalent to an appendix or a tapeworm.

But who decides that? Why should a judge, who must be objective without a political bias, decide the clear political position whether the unborn is or is not a human being, with or without its own right to privacy?

Unelected unacountable judges decided, based on their own personal opinions, that unborn human organisms could not be legally defined as human beings until after “viability.� By Judicial decree, rather than democratic legeslative process, this opinion was made law.

First off, there’s a reason they aren’t elected. Politicizing positions that are supposed to be objective would be disastorous for our courts. Secondly, they were appointed by the people we elected, so in a sense, they represent the views of our representative democracy. Like it or not, that’s how we make law.

And frankly, if you don’t believe judges, who are appointed by your elected officials, should have the authority to make law, then you don’t believe in our constitution.

Fair enough?

Unelected unacountable judges decided, based on their own personal opinions, that unborn human organisms could not be legally defined as human beings until after “viability.” By Judicial decree, rather than democratic legeslative process, this opinion was made law.

I believe that unelected judges do not have authority in a democratic system like our own to make such an opinion into law. No conservative wants to see the supreme court ban abortions. We just want to see Roe v. Wade overturned so that a democratic process, i.e. the people of each state, would determine the legal status of the unborn.

The majority of the country as a whole may not want roe overturned, however i have 2 points:

1) The constitutionality of Roe as legal precident is not up for public refferendum unless the constitution is ammended according to such refferendum. The legislative and judicial branches are seperate to prevent tyranny of the majority.

2)The majority of people in states like texas, missouri, the carolinas ect.. do want to see Roe v. Wade overturned and would vote to ban or limit abortions in their own states.

Roe v. Wade may not be overturned anytime soon, but remember it took 62 years before Plessy vs. Ferguson was overturned.

But John is right. The majority do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. You are obviously not going to choose that for your lifestyle, but many women want the same civil rights as men, and that’s why I doubt Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned.