<p>
</p>
<p>You love to put words into peoples mouths. I never put anyone in a box. I used the most general, vague term I could. You just love to hate those that disagree, don’t you?</p>
<p>agree prml - it should be a states’ issue - both capital punishment & abortion.</p>
<p>I am pro-life as I feel, according to the constitution, everyone is guaranteed a right to life liberty & pursuit of happiness. The difference in terms of capital punishment is that those who commit crimes against our laws forfeit some of their rights. An unborn child has committed no crime.</p>
<p>“You love to put words into peoples mouths. I never put anyone in a box. I used the most general, vague term I could. You just love to hate those that disagree, don’t you?”</p>
<p>No, and no. I never attributed any quotes to you, and I don’t really hate anyone. I am pretty much apathetic to a fault. I don’t even feel mild contempt for anyone on this board, hate would be verging on ridiculous. It seems like you are quick to make assumptions, though - where was this hate you’re speaking of?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Right to Life” doesn’t ring a bell? </p>
<p>We have certain unalienable rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution (see post #62). Shouldn’t innocent children guaranteed a right to life?</p>
<p>“We have certain unalienable rights guaranteed to us by our Constitution (see post #62). Shouldn’t innocent children guaranteed a right to life?”</p>
<p>The Constitution controls state action, not private action. If I decide to murder my wife, that’s not an unconstitutional imposition on her right to life. You could make an argument about this when it comes to federally funded abortion, but there’s really nowhere to go with this line of reasoning where private actors are concerned.</p>
<p>Post #59. Re-read it. You clearly state:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clearly in reference to my post #58. I agree hate is too strong of a term. I should have used something different. Perhaps, like me, you just like to argue. :)</p>
<p>Hanna beat me to it with regard to the constitutionality of Roe v Wade. </p>
<p>I do happen to believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional.</p>
<p>“Shouldn’t innocent children guaranteed a right to life?”</p>
<p>Supreme Court has already ruled on that one. Non-viable fetuses aren’t children. (Since they aren’t born yet, they are probably innocent, as they are as yet untainted by original sin.)</p>
<p>“Clearly in reference to my post #58. I agree hate is too strong of a term. I should have used something different. Perhaps, like me, you just like to argue. :)”</p>
<p>I think physically sick and bored crazy better describes my status, really. Thing is, I don’t even really like arguing, but I can be pretty nasty on the internet.</p>
<p>And no, the constitution does not guarantee all life forms any right to life.</p>
<p>I’ve notice you can be…</p>
<p>I wasn’t actually referencing anything I have said recently, I think I have acted pretty mildly, actually. Some people always think they are being persecuted, I guess, but if there is something specific that I have said that was particularly offensive than it is probably good for me to know about it. </p>
<p>That said, let’s please not talk about me anymore. It is embarrassing on a public forum. I tried to steer it away with the last sentence of my previous post!</p>
<p>Wow…I’m going to have to look up some of your other posts… <==last personal reference, for now. lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Argue, pmrlcomm? Not you. Why, you’ve agreed with everything I’ve ever posted! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve discovered the same phenomenon about myself on the internet. It’s a little disturbing. While I’m a slightly argumentative, but generally laid-back soul in person, just get me started on one of these threads and I turn into GI Jane! I’m not nearly as wild-eyed as I used to be, though.</p>
<p>I have a real question, especially for Hanna, to whom abortion seems a primary issue. Personally, abortion is not one of my main issues in terms of a presidential candidate. It seems to me that even if McCain appoints a far-right person(s) to the court (“strict constitutionalists”), and that the court eventually hears an abortion case as has been predicted, the worse case scenario would be a decision to let states determine their own laws regarding it (such as gay marriage is decided now). Why would that be such a bad thing?</p>
<p>“Why would that be such a bad thing?”</p>
<p>Because I don’t think state legislatures are any better at knowing what’s best for individuals than Congress is. The idea of my state legislators as some kind of ethical experts would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. And as a result, the poorest, least educated, least mobile, most foolish, and youngest women will be the ones who end up having kids they didn’t want. And that’s not good.</p>
<p>As long as economy reamins bad, there is no way any Republican candidate will win this year. Any oppopnent who is a democrat will win the elction. If history can a clue, in recession, always the opposition party candidate have won. </p>
<p>Unless Obaama makes a terrible mistake and economy improve drastically, Obama is in. Obama has economy its best weapon to help him win. If economy and gas price situation improves, it will be a hard fought battle.</p>
<p>Thanks, Hanna. I will think that over.</p>