I mean if they want to promote freedom of choice and abortion is okay according to american standards, why do we have to wears seatbelts isn't that a violation of our rights. Is it against the law to commit sucide? I personally hate seatbelts but this is about more than seat belts. This makes me pose another question why can we drink and kill our selfs but we can't "kill ourselves" by not wearing our seat belts? \n\n("Kill ourselves" is in quotes because Seat belts aren't always helpful sometimes they keep people trapped in the car, on the other hand alcohol ALWAYS damages your body.)
202080
Your question is good and very interesting. What it shows is the many contradicitons in the law.\n\nIf goverment had it their way--I imagine they would outlaw many of the personal freedoms we have.\nWhy one law is set in place opposed to another depends on the lobby of folks in higher places that are willing to fight agaisnt it.\n\nIt is a fine line the goverment walks as they make laws on a public level without stepping on peoples personal rights.\n\nHowever--you are not without choice--you can choose not to wear seatbelts and pay the 10$ ticket if caught or you can organize folks to fight agaisnt an unjust law.\n\nLike I said above--it is these fights that explain why we have so many contradictions.
204596
That right has always been forfeited, when have we ever legally had the choice to die? Our pets do, but we do not. Its just the law. It doesnt stop anyone from doing it though, so what does it really matter. Love Heidi
9788
I'm very thankful for the seatbelt law in America.  I would hate to think of all the people who would be dead now if they were not wearing seat belts in a car accident.
84392
I think there is a lot of political expediency when it comes to abortion from both the "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" camps.\n\nYou already mentioned the inconsistencies of the Pro-life politicians, but isn't it equally crap that you get Pro-choice politicians who say that they are personally opposed to abortion, but think it should remain "safe, legal, and rare" ? If someone believes it's wrong to get an abortion, the only thing that could make it wrong, is that it is taking a life. And if it is takng a life, then shouldn't it be outlawed ?\n\nSo I think there are many inconsistencies one could find in everyone's arguments.\n\nI myself am opposed to abortion, but am pragmatic. Less is better than more, but none would be optimum. I doubt the American public would ever support a ban on all abortions. The rape, incest, endangered mother's life, deformed baby argument as being the only exceptions I can live with because the vast majority of abortions are simply "late" birth control.
626627
It is the age-old question of liberty versus security.  A totalitarian society, with no freedoms, is very safe and secure; in contrast, a society with no laws would provide the maximum of individual freedom, but no security.  Our country is a balance, and it is a balance that shifts depending on the external situation.  War time tends to make people anxious, and people become more willing to sacrifice their rights.  The argument basically goes, what's the point in having rights when you are dead?  However, the courts are supposed to be insulated from political pressures, and are supposed to merely interpret the Constitution and all laws passed under it.  Courts tend to do this because judges are often able to look at a bigger picture, and because the questions that judges are supposed to answer are narrow legal questions involving legal interpretations.  As soon as the American people believe that the country is secure, those fears will be assauged and people will once again be more concerned about their own liberties.  Of course, there are always distinct groups of people, such as conservatives, liberals, and libertarians (those who basically believe in a minimum of restrictive laws).  That, however, is a topic for another time.
607213
It's really amazing to me how many people don't see the freight train hiding being their little conservative posterboard...\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterlizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right.\n\nAs soon as Casey is overturned (for those who forget: Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992) we've lost freedom from government intereference in reproductive choice.\n\nIt's not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions. Right now, it's the individual. But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and thus subject to state regulation, try to imagine what could happen.\n\nNew York could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. It's up to the states to decide.\n\nSouth Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.\n\nOr North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Let the states decide. Right?\n\nOnce the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.\n\nDo people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must?  Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
233978
Why did that guy above me have to be mean?  I read much dumber stuff on here!  \nI don't think abortion should be used as birth control.  But take a minute and think, please.  There are many, many people who CAN'T read this, and abortion had nothing to do with it.\nThe body ALSO aborts, but on its own.  We don't punish the body for miscarriages, do we?  I have to say I am not so righteous to believe I have all the facts and all the knowledge about abortion and the people who have them.  Not my business, it's theirs.  And I know people who have had abortions - it was NOT an easy decision, but best for everyone involved, including the unborn.\nThere are so many unwanted already.
15048
Welcome to America, where you're allowed to "value" one thing, and then act in the complete opposite way.  Also, notice these are the same people who don't want the fetus' life to end, but have no problem murdering the doctor performing the abortion....Hmmmm indeed.
421711
I believe that's taking it a bit too far. I consider myself to be anti-abortion but at the same time, I realize there are certain cases when abortions should be a choice for the woman just like how the death penalty and divorces should only be reserved for extreme situations. Those cases include rape, incest, performing the operation to save the woman's life, or finding out that the baby will be born so deformed that it'll die in less than a year.\n\nOn the other hand, I don't believe a woman should simply choose to have her own baby killed just because she decided to get drink just a little too much at last night's party or willingly gave in to her boyfriend because "[she] thought he loved [me]." When that happens, I'll have absolutely no respect for her if she chooses to go to one of those alley-way abortion clinics.
206628
Thats a hard one to answer. Knowing that my aunty was killed in a car crash years ago because the seatbelt had cut her in half.\n\nI have had to convince myself, if our times up our times up and there isnt much we can do about it. (seatbelt or no seatbelt)\n\nI guess I would still wear a seatbelt cause for me its become habitual.
260987
are you kidding me? the big deal is it is illegal. drinking and driving kills so many innocent people per year it's mind blowing and it kills the law breaking drunkards behind the wheel too. get a clue.\n\noh ok that was your attempt at a joke...um..not funny
172559
Obviously this is a tough question. I think that the general policy must be one that favors personal freedoms rather than protections. The case of abortion is a red herring. It is much too complicated by religious and moral issues. Another example might be better. what about the right of habeas corpus? Currently the right of habeas corpus has been suspended in the name of the War on Terrorism. Any individual (united states citizen or not) can be named an 'enemy combatant' and held indefinatly, without charges, without representation, and without a court appearance. I personally think that this is a clear sign of 'protection' over powering 'civil liberties.'
32950
People can..and do ..go outside and kill whoever they want(they call it murder),they also get abortions(i think to worry about someone elses baby while it's still in that person,is just plain nosey.)It's still attacted to the mother,her body,her choice.This choice is essential for multiple reasons,the more they are restricted the harder it is to get them,meaning the more dangerious it is for those seaking one,you someday in your life may need the very abortion your so apposed to,would'nt it be nice to have a clinic that offered this procedure in a sanitary and non bias envoriment?If you think i have no right,i was almost an abortion,choice is the word here,people should have it.but if somone is'nt ready for one reason or another to be a parent they should be able to make that choice without the judgment of others.
75757
If you are not safe, you are not free.  Many times, when a person was attacked (be it rape, robbery, whatever) I have heard people say things like, "Well, she should not have gone to the mall by herself at night.  It's not safe."  Or, "Well, he should not have driven through that neighborhood." So, how free are we if a law-abiding citizen "is not supposed to" go out where they want to legally go?  \n\nI have nothing against security measures such as cameras in parks, parking lots, etc.  The camera does not prevent you from doing one legal thing.
670505
You ask: <So is the sanctity of life just a human invention based on self interest to protect itself?>\n\nYes. Probably. It's odd, isn't it that life is sacred for the unborn, but once you're born, you're fit to kill, particularly if you're not American. So, the idea is not a human invention, but probably an American invention (of a particular political group) to advance it's own interests. Like all political principles, this principle is filled with contradictions. Instead of principle, I should have said "slogan".
242563
That quote you have posted is just wrong in so many ways.  Why would any woman be so stupid as to degrade herself in saying men are not responsible for pregnancies and other parental issues?  Sex is not something that deserves punishment! It happens in nature, people were intended to do it, and there is nothing wrong with it.  NO ONE should be punished for acting on natural instinct.  I just hate it when people always act like it is so wrong--it's not! And as far as the pregnancy thing goes--people make mistakes.  Although you may be responsible and careful, it can happen.  It's just like driving a car: you may be a good driver, but it doesn't mean that you'll never crash.  Abortion is an upsetting thing, but it's just not practical to make it illegal.  Women can't always provide the support a baby will need, and I personally don't think it's up to men in the government to make decisions about abortion.  Men don't get pregnant, so why should they be able to decide? They have no basis for judgement.  As far as this Karen lady goes, why would she act to stop her own access to her rights? It just doesn't make sense to me.  Anyway, after that long rant, the answer to your question is NO.
593840
Laws set by government must be followed in order to stay out of jail and so forth.  God's LAWS must be followed in order to stay out of hell.  \nJust because a group of politicians and/or voters decided that something is okay does not mean that God thinks it is okay. As far as abortion goes, the commandment says THOU SHALL NOT KILL. How more specific can that be? The government says- oh it has a heart that is beating, but it is not alive so therefore it is okay to kill it.  \nFunny, how can you kill something that is not alive????\n\n\nRemember, too, that God did not elect the political officials that are deciding that these things are okay. Sinners voted sinners in to make laws.