Coulter derided for having Christian Beliefs

[JonMiller]

JM, don't presume to know what a lawyer means by "bad decision." The question remains, show that the issue is fraudulent. I assume you were taking on that task.

It's been a while since I argued this (when some lawyers were involved in the discussion, generally pro-choice but anti Roe Vs Wade). Here is a link I found with quick googling:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46798-2004Nov12.html
"Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching."


JM

 

[freeindeed2]

Free, it concerns me that you insist on misrepresenting the issues. That's a very troubling type of mindset. No one has ever said what you suggest in your last sentence yet you . . . nevermind.

Senti, humanity has always had the choice to kill or not to kill. Everybody has 'free will' to choose to kill whomever they wish. And women who choose to abort/kill/whatever word you would insert here, their unborn child are exercising that choice.

Would you exact a legal penalty for anyone who would dismember a baby the moment in emerges from its mother? If not, would you exact a penalty for anyone who would kill the child when he/she turns 3? What about 6? 20? 80?

But aborting/killing/dismembering/whatever word you would use, the baby while still in the mother is somehow OK in society, the same society that would lock up someone for killing someone after birth?

 

[JonMiller]

Incidentally, would any of you guys care to spell out all the rights of the unborn you are willing to protect, since you wish to make that the issue?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

JM

 

[sentipente]

"Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching."
JM

Judicial review is also an example of judicial overreaching. You still have not shown that the issue was fraudulent.

 

[sentipente]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Since you believe the state must ensure these are you willing to absolve the mother of any responsibility for these once the baby is born?

 

[JonMiller]

Since you believe the state must ensure these are you willing to absolve the mother of any responsibility for these once the baby is born?

It is a lot better to absolve the mother of any responsibility after viability (I am not even saying birth) then to condone murder.

Additionally, I still have communistic inclinations and support increased state involvement in child raising (particularly if the parents (mother/father) don't wish to fulfill their role). Some of my desires for this direction might prove too radical for the population.

JM

 

[sentipente]

So, in your thinking is there any situation in which one who has an abortion may not be found guilty of murder? While you are at it, what is your definition of murder?

 

[sentipente]

It is a lot better to absolve the mother of any responsibility after viability (I am not even saying birth) then to condone murder.

Who then takes on that responsibility? Do you advocate a tax increase to pay for it?