Rick Santorum: What does the First Amendment really protect?

**Xiahou** · 07-22-2005, 19:08

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I agree with where you're headed with this argument, but you need to be more careful with your terminology. A blastocyst meets all the biological requirements for life. It does not meet all the medical ethical standards to call it a human being. Of course it's alive at conception. There's lots of things that are alive that we have no qualms about changing that status. The argument you should be making is that it's not a human being, and therefore it isn't murder (if that's how you feel).

At the risk of side-tracking the thread, I've got to say I don't understand that argument. At conception the baby has a uniquely identifiable genetic code- that person has never existed and will never exist again and has everything it needs to grow into an adult. All it requires is oxygen, nutrition, and a safe environment- not unlike newborns. Where do we draw the line? When it has a heartbeat? When it grows limbs and begins to 'look' human? When it emits brainwaves? When its capable of feeling pain?

Abortion is good for society. More unwanted babies is bad for America--Of all people, Republicans should be FOR Abortion, as it's less people whom you'll have to pay for their welfare.

Advocating millions of murders for the good of society is monstrous.

Now, more on topic (sorta), politicians should base their legislative actions on their beliefs, period. Why is it ok if his fiscal beliefs say we should have lower taxes, but an outrage if his religious beliefs tell him abortion is murder? Its a ridiculous litmus test to suggest that legislators should determine whether a view has religious influence before being able to support it. Again, they are elected for their beliefs- if those beliefs are different enough from ours, we vote someone else it. Whether he holds views because of his religion is irrelevant.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-23-2005, 01:37

You euthanize animals,

Their not human in any sense and this is done to ease their suffering. I dont know why they shoot horses with broken legs though. Cant they be fixed well enuff to at least walk?

you kill prisoners on death row

I dont back that and doubt that most Americans do. In fact we went many years with none and as gpmpared to abortion the mumbers are truley insignificant. That is unless your one of the few are executeted.

you do assisted suicide (in my state anyway), ect.

This is also a result of Roe vs Wade and the culture of death it started. What state is that?

It's not abortion

Thats arguable

**Colovion** · 07-23-2005, 01:47

I wonder when it'll be that people begin thinking abortions will be beneficial to human kind rather than the opposite.

~overpopulation etc

probably 50-75 years

**Xiahou** · 07-23-2005, 01:53

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

I live in Oregon, and the Morning After Pill not being abortion is NOT arugable. Read the thing. It prevents the Sperm from uniting with the egg, the same way all Birth Control does.

The morning after pill works in 3 ways. It tries to prevent an egg from being released, tries to impede the sperms travel to the egg and finally, it tries to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting- the 3rd part is how it can be called abortion.

Also, its only about 80% effective even when used properly and clinical studies show it has no net effect on pregnancy rates. Then there's the list of side-effects that can result from dosing your body with a massive amount of hormones.

I'm against human euthanasia, as well as the death penalty. However, at least with the death penalty its presumably a violent criminal being killed, and with euthanasia its supposedly a person who is terminally ill with no chance of recovery. An unborn child has done nothing wrong and is not terminally ill- most will grow into healthy adults. So, if one supports euthanasia or the death penalty -again, I dont- I still think they have to sink lower still to allow for killing because of simple inconvenience.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-23-2005, 02:03

I wonder when it'll be that people begin thinking abortions will be beneficial to human kind rather than the opposite.
~overpopulation etc

probably 50-75 years

They have already been saying this for many years. People say it right here on these boards all the time.

How did a thread on free speech turn into another abortion thread.? The point is that we dont oppose abortion for the most part because were reigous. I know as far as Im concerned religion has nothing to do with it but its the fact that its human. Theres no way around it . And its alive. It may not be fully formed but then neither is a baby or even a teenager. We believe that humans are all something special. As has been said you may be killing the greatest person who would ever have walked the earth. Then again it could be the next Stalin. None of us oppose abortion to save a womans life but there are so many people looking for children who cant have their own. Surley birth and adoption are a better alternative.

**Taffy_is_a_Taff** · 07-23-2005, 02:07

that comment about women who have had abortions not giving a crap about what they aborted is wrong.
Probably true for some of them but I've known several who were absolute wrecks because they had had abortions. The one who'd been pressurised to have several abortions by her boyfriend was particularily fucked up.

**Xiahou** · 07-23-2005, 05:39

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Adoption Agencies are overflowing these days. What would you have done? Do you want to pay for them? I don't.

That's not true at all. Newborns have huge demand and waiting lists are common. Heck, couples go to other countries to adopt babies. It just comes down to it being to 'inconvenient' to bear the child- so instead they kill them.

**Redleg** · 07-23-2005, 08:03

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

It's both. Believe what you want, but cannot force it on the people. I have nothing against religious congressmen, I have something against religious congressmen who don't respect that official state business should not be religious business.

To put the thread back on track to the initial intent.

You are incorrect in this - the amendment states very clearly what its intent is - and it has nothing to do with Freedom From that is an interpation that is incorrect.

The actual wording of the amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now it explictly states no law respection an establishment of religion those words had a very specific meaning to the founding fathers. And it did not mean that religious people could not be in the government, it did not mean religion could not be mentioned in the government - what it means is very clear that the government will not establish a state religion.

Nor will congress make any law that prevents an individual from practicing a religion.

**Redleg** · 07-23-2005, 08:10

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Example of unnaceptable religion in the government would be something like this:

Good concept - but your logical is flawed.

"We won't pass gay marriage laws, because it is against our Christian values."

A senator, a representive and even the President are perfectly entitled to state something like this, a group of politicians are perfectly entitled to state something like this.

This is the same as saying We will pass income redistrubtion legislation because it is within our beliefs that the government knows best

"We won't pass abortion laws because it offends our christian values."

ect. ect.

Again a perfectly acceptable statement coming from individuals or a group of individuals in politics.

And not just on uber liberal issues like that either, they are just the most readily obvious. It becomes a problem for me when the basis for their ACTIONS in office are religious.

*edit*

The constitution does not forbid this - again you can disagree with the politians statements, you can protest their statements because you disagree with them - but once again its within the intent of the Constitution. People are still allowed to base their politicial opinion on their personal beliefs be it religious, or otherwise.

Don, Don, you irrepressable bum. Murder has been unnacceptable in society since long before the bible came about.

And again it goes to the point about the constitution that you are missing.

**Redleg** · 07-23-2005, 08:16

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

My words become so twisted even I am beginning to think the world is flat!

No, I want it removed from Legislation, as per the Constitution. Mind you, so far, Congress has done a decent job of keeping in line with the constitution regarding religion--indeed sometimes i think we've crossed the line into repressing religion.

Believe what ever you want, the Constitution says you can. But Congress cannot give religions preferential treatment. That's it.

Again where in the constitution does it state that the Legislative body can not mention religion? Where in the amendment does it state when you enter politicial office that you can not have religious views or mention it in a speech while in congress?

THe wording of the constitution is very clear on Religion as it relates to the government involvement. The congress shall make no law respection an establishment of religion how is any of the above mentioned items an establishment of religion by the government?

I hope you do realize that in essence your attempting to deny public officials one of their constitutional rights - or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So to prevent something that is not against the constitution - you are willing to have unconstitutional laws passed?