South Dakota passed abortion bill banning it...  my question. ?
116490
You have a twisted view of the First Amendment - as do most Americans today. Until the mid-1900s, this amendment was understood to be exactly what it said:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF ..." (caps added)\n\nThe statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:\n\n"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.\n\nThe reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:\n\n"When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world..." \n\nThe "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.\n\nOur Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians. We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas.\n\nThis is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible.\n\nThe founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.\n\nAn example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..."  The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.\n\nFor instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came
855549
Abortion is immorally wrong and legally protected. That's life...err...death. You make a good point though.\n\nTHE PROMLEM though, is that such a law could easily be used by deadbeat dads to refuse child support.
814634
According to a recent news article:\n\n"Magnum opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother..."\n\nupdate - oops, this was from 2004 I'll see if I can find something more recent in case he flip-flops.\n\nNope...the man has not responded to dozens of 2006 voter guides on the issue of abortion.  Sorry I can't help.
491952
Not today,\n\nThe Wisconsin Legilature voted to put the following referendum on the November ballot.\n\nThe referendum will ask: "Should the death penalty be enacted in the state of Wisconsin for cases involving a person who is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, if the conviction is supported by DNA evidence?"\n\nThat's what we need, another death penalty. Wonder how many Wisconsin anti-abortioner's will vote yes?
778001
83:  Yes, although I STILL feel a little torn voting yes, because there are some forseeable problems with this prop, especially the fact that it affects ALL "sex offenders" including people who are caught peeing on the side of the road...those type of mild instances where people have "technically" committed a sex crime makes this prop unfair, but I think the good it will do outweighs the negatives.  I hate molesters, rapists, abusers, etc. so I will vote yes.\n\n84:  YES...clean water???  Hell yes!\n\n85:  NO NO NO!  I am most passionate about this prop.  I'm disappointed to see people voting yes.  By voting yes on this you endanger the small majority of girls who cannot tell their parents because of an abusive home life.  Physical and sexual abuse do occur in homes, and if a girl gets pregnant and doesn't want to tell her parents about the abortion she has GOOD reason for it, usually to protect herself.  Studies show over 60% of girls already tell one or both parents.  If you have good communication and a loving relationship with your child you shouldn't have to vote yes on this to ensure they tell you.  Also, this prop is just a small step that the pro-life side is taking towards getting abortion outlawed alltogether.  It is a slippery slope!  Please vote no.  :(\n\n86:  Yes, I think the money used from the cigarette tax will go to really good things.\n\n87:  Yes.  Save our planet!\n\n88:  No, many schools don't even qualify for the money they claim will be designated to them.  Its a never-ending property tax...yikes.\n\n89:  Yes.\n\n90:  No, it sounds good in theory, but there's a lot of problems with this particular prop.\n\nHappy voting!
828758
I liked the yawn response.  Sounds like one of our politicians.  Good questions you're bringing up.  There's a lot of confusion out there and most of it is from a society that wants to believe that abortion is no big deal.  But it is a matter of life and death and it does concern the most helpless members of our society.\nIn answer to your question the noble and respected abortion "doctors" do have to wait a bit more than 6 weeks before they can suck the little ones out and harvest their bodies to medical and pharmaceutical laboratories.
448860
Unfortunately yes, a bill is being reviewed in Congress over the possible ban of religious texts upon public transportation.  Luckily its not a very popular bill.  Seems like a violation of the separation of church and state clause in the constitution.
879507
The law started because to many young girls were going to the guy with the dirty knife and folding table to have abortions, getting infections and dying... it also started because to many young girls were having the babies and throwing them in dumpsters or trash cans- did you ever hear about the girl at her prom, that had the baby in the bathroom threw it away, then went out and continued dancing... it was one thing after another.. so to save the young girls lives and the born babies, they came up with that law, which in some states has been retracted- like mine... which I was upset about... People's excuse was that they would want to know, they wouldn't want their child to go have an abortion without them knowing... and that's all well and good for the stable households, but there are girls out there that can not tell their parents.. they have that dad that's going to smack her around and throw her out the door... not all young girls lead good lives with their parents.. some parents are extremely abusive and mentally unstable
765173
Killing babies refers to abortion, which is still legal under the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Both Democrat and Republican women have unwanted pregnancies and abortions.\n\nMost flag burnings have been staged; there is not a lot of it going on, so it's a false issue. Democrat Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter of anti flag burning legislation. I don't think Democrats really care one way or another about this non issue.
1118108
Morning after pill, second that motion.\nOh! Isn't this still considered an abortion by some extremist Christians?  Who cares about them?  \nThey are going to hell along with the rest of the extremist racist bigots.
979087
I’m agnostic and pro-life, but would not have abortion completely outlawed.  Lt me say upfront that I do not judge or blame any individual for having an abortion, what ever the reason.  Society has made it completely acceptable and it is the fault of all of us collectively, not the individual.   Unfortunately, people use rare exceptions which end up making abortion common place and a method of birth control.  How does that happen?  Just like the rape and incest exceptions they also use abuse by a parent as a reason for not having parental notification.  If you really want to think of all of the rare exceptions out there then there are just as many damaging one’s from making abortion easy as from outlawing or limiting it.\n\nStarting with your example of a girl who is raped by her father, it could be traumatic for her to go on with a pregnancy, but if she doesn’t isn’t it more likely that her father will continue to rape her?  If she were pregnant her father could be caught.  If the evidence is destroyed he can continue to rape her.  Also isn’t it at least as likely that a girl who was raped could be traumatized by the “decision” to kill the baby?   Even if she isn’t at the time she makes the “decision” she could be at a later time.  I’ve known many people (way too many) who have had abortions and most of them regret it to some degree or another.  I’ve never known anyone who regretted having their child even the one’s who  gave them up for adoption (they might regret that they gave them up, but not that they had them).\n\nThe abuse by a parent for the parental notification is another common exception people use to make abortion free and easy.  People who use this exception don’t really understand abusive homes.     I have had close friends who lived in extremely abusive homes to the point of being beaten to near death.  The thing with an abusive parent is, it has nothing to do with what the child does. Anything and everything triggers the abuse.  People, who think that the child gets beaten because of their actions, don’t understand abuse.   If an abusive parent finds out about a pregnancy, will they most likely abuse?  Yes.  But they will find another reason if the child doesn’t get pregnant.  Having an abortion will not stop a child from getting abused.  In addition, it is very rare for both parents to be abusive and the non abusive one is usually very protective and even encourages the beatings to be transferred to them.  The non abusive parent is the one the child would tell.  In the extremely rare case where both parents are abusive, most parental notification laws give an exception for a judge to overrule the requirement.  \n\nI hope you don’t take offense to my answer and I hope it doesn’t come across as critical of you personally or of your intentions.  I know this is a sensitive topic for people.   I used to feel the same way as you do, until I had a child and felt the miracle of the whole process.  It made me start questioning things more and not buy into the position being fed by the media and by pro-abortion groups that have a larger agenda than women’s rights.
175630
So much for Democrats complaining about too many constitutional amendments.\n\nWith or without the interpretation which allows any abortions, the Constitutional amendment would fail. It won't even make it out of Congress, much less make it to the states.
270678
From what I understand about the case, the states determined abortion laws, and still do.  So, if it is illegal in one state, a woman can travel to another to have the procedure performed.  \nBut, I have always wondered the answer to this myself.  I assumed it would outlaw any abortions except those to save the mother's life.  But, that assumption must be wrong or you wouldn't have asked this question.
669940
They are legal. The debate about that is over. Roe v. Wade is still the rule of law.\n\nDo I think it is murder? That is a whole other issue. I would never be able to contemplate having an abortion without feeling as though I was killing my child. I know that I would never "get over" having made that choice. I know I would need forgiveness, the question would be==> who would forgive me?  I know there are circumstances where it might be necessary, but pray I am never subject to those circumstances.\n\nIt is a tough, impossible issue. In the end, it probably should be legal, but there should be stricter hoops before it is permitted.
530855
annie red\nI am unsure about religion and I am a woman.  I have yet to hear a logical reason why abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason other than to save the Mother's life.  Partial birth abortion is not only murder.  It is murder by torture.  Stop stereotyping members of the pro-life movement.\n\nBy the way.  Why do liberals assume that conservatives have been brainwashed into their beliefs?  Has it never occured to you that the asker has already looked at all sides of the issue?\n\nPro-choice doctors are just as biased as pro-life doctors.
286196
You raise a perfectly valid point, and one with which I happen to agree. That's why I tend to avoid answering abortion questions. When I do weigh in, however, it is always on the side of choice, simply because the alternative contradicts my fundamental philosophy regarding the rights of the individual in society. It makes not one iota of difference what I personally think of abortion, unless I am directly involved in some way (i.e., I'm the potential father). \n\nMore to the point, however, I don't believe this issue is ANYONE else's business but those parties directly involved. In other words, it NEVER should have become a political or moral issue in the first place. It is an entirely personal and (very) private issue. So, when male politicians and religious leaders jump in with both feet, that's when I get really angry. It could not be any LESS their business, and no amount of sanctimonious moralizing is ever going to change that fact.\n\nOne final point. I think every abortion is a tragedy, but not for the reasons the pro-life zealots say it is. The tragedy is that a young woman is going through personal hell and is making a choice that may well haunt her for the rest of her life. She may be having the abortion for any number of reasons (rape, incest, health dangers, personal choice, whatever) and she will doubtless suffer for whatever decision she makes. That sad fate is plenty bad enough without having perfect bloody strangers blundering in to voice their disapproval on top of all else. \n\nThe bottom line is that this is rightly her decision to make in the end. Sure, if there is a father present who actually wants this child, he should have a say in the outcome. And doctors clearly have some role to play here, too. But how did such a deeply painful and personal choice ever become fodder for hypocritical politicians and pious religious leaders (whose primary responsibility is to preach tolerance, surely)? It is madness, pure madness...
84718
Bush has banned it because they get stem cells from aborted fetuses. However, there will always be abortion, legal or illegal. Why not use the cells.