Rick Santorum: What does the First Amendment really protect?

**Don Corleone** · 07-22-2005, 13:18

You said you objected to abortion laws, because they're religious in nature. I asked you wouldn't murder qualify, and you gave me that wonderful story about the glory days of secular Rome... (???)

I'm not trying to twist your words. If you've got a good way to explain to me how it is that we can distinguish religious laws you will not tolerate (such as abortion or public prayer) and religious laws you will tolerate (such as murder or theft), then by all means, I'd love to hear it.

**Don Corleone** · 07-22-2005, 13:28

Aaah, okay. Believe it or not, you've actually made a very good point, and now it is clear. You're saying people in power should not rule solely on their religious beliefs. I agree totally, but I do not believe that was Rick Santorum's intent. Your original argument made it sound that because his thought process was tainted at all by religious persuasion, he was acting unconstitutionally. Now that I understand your point, let me assauge your fears. I seriously doubt Rick Santorum does anything solely because his minister told him to.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-22-2005, 14:29

Where I get suspicious is when people start using absolutely christian ideas like "It's alive at Conception."

It is alive at conception . How can you deny that? This is a fact not some christain belief?

It doesnt matter why someone supports something if its the right thing to do. This country would be very different if it were based on Islamic beliefs yet people try to deny Christianites role in forming this nation. We wouldnt have this government if not for christianity.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-22-2005, 14:40

Alive is a relative term. At Conception it is just a cell, with no brain, no thoughts, and no feeling. A little Blastocyst or what have you. Saying that it is a crime to kill such a thing is like claiming amputation is a crime.

I dont think so. Its alive and its human theres no denying that. Again if 2 week old fetuses tasted good would you eat them or feed them to your dog? Ask any woman who lost a baby at any stage if she felt it was just a clump of cells.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 07-22-2005, 14:51

All thats fine and I agree with you. But as you see religion really doesnt matter on this issue. If your only argument were god says its wrong then you would have a point.

**Don Corleone** · 07-22-2005, 17:39

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Abortion has, for some reason that is beyond me, become very attached to the agenda of the Religious Right. They oppose it to make a statement.

You need to stop and ask yourself if this boogeyman the media has created, the shadowy Religious Right, or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, as they were once called, really threatens you in the way the Democrats would have you believe.

By their definition YOU ARE in the Religious Right!!! How dare you deny a woman her right to choice in her 38th week!!!

**Don Corleone** · 07-22-2005, 17:36

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Alive is a relative term. At Conception it is just a cell, with no brain, no thoughts, and no feeling. A little Blastocyst or what have you. Saying that it is a crime to kill such a thing is like claiming amputation is a crime.

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).

**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.