The REAL reason for the fight against Roe v. Wade: PRIVACY

[Elspeth]

The right to abortion is based on the right to privacy. Privacy does not appear as a right in the Constitution, but it was inferred as a right by the Supreme Court in the 1973 R v. W decision. Abortion is only one special case of the right to privacy: sex between two consenting adults (ie, not having the government break into your bedroom because you're engaging in "sodomy") is also based in the right to privacy.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7622

"MATRIX is another new data mining tool that stands for the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Exchange Program. It violates our privacy by mass monitoring the lives and activities of ordinary people on the pretext of learning whether they may be engaging in any type terrorist or criminal activity.

Privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution, but Supreme Court decisions affirmed it as a fundamental human right. In addition, it's protected under the Ninth Amendment, the Third prohibiting quartering troops in homes, the Fourth prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth safeguarding against self-incrimination. MATRIX and other intrusive laws violate the letter and spirit of the law and permits Patriot and HSA justice in "police state America."

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Well, yeah

that and control. Without privacy, it is so much easier to control people.

[Elspeth]

2. A right to privacy puts the breaks on the more intrusive behaviors of government

and, in this case, the corporate-owned government. Take away privacy, bit by bit, and we're helpless.

[Triana]

3. I think it's CONTROL....

...gotsta control them uppity wimmin. Can't have them making their own decisions.

[RB TexLa]

4. But it goes both ways. It's pretty easy to see some wanting spousal consent or notification

for a vasectomy. I too control my body and my wife has no say in that.

[Elspeth]

7. There is a bigger picture here: It's about privacy in general

I don't want this to get off the rails, and I really don't want a war over vasectomies today. "Tit for tat" is not what this is about.

It's about what underlies the right to reproductive freedom to begin with: the SC in 1973 acknowledged in the R vW decision, the right to privacy. Gay rights decisions (ie, the abolishment of sodomy laws) are ALSO based on this right to privacy. It's the same basis.

But a right to privacy ALSO means a right NOT to be wiretapped (I hate the word Eavesdropped--it sounds like your nosy neighbor and not a Big Brother government-corporate complex).

If R v W goes, then the right to privacy goes with it. THat in fact is what so many opponents of R v W talk about. I've heard people say that R v W went "too far" with its contention that there is a "right to privacy." THAT is the issue.

[uppityperson]

16. If vasectomies were illegal, would you get a back alley one?

What are your other options? Do pregnant women have those other options?

[RB TexLa]

20. That is part of what Roe v Henry Wade protects. It's all under privacy

and one's right to control and regulate their body. No one else has a say.

[melody]

5. Control is exactly what it's about

Sexual subjugation.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

9. Sorry but I disagree

Some folks just believe that human life begins at conception (queue monty python every sperm is sacred reference) and they are as abhorred by the killing of what they consider unborn children as we are by the carpet bombing of Iraq children..

For most pro life folks its not about hating or controlling women just a very loud, 'moranic', minority of them

[Jamastiene]

19. You know. Some might look at it the way you desribe, but

out here in the real world, the majority look at the carpet bombing of children in Iraq as God's chosen sacred one pertectin' our freedoms from terruhists.

It might not hurt you to get out more so you can see what people are really like out here. People who look at it as your describe are such a small minority. In all sincerity, I've never met someone in real life who looks at it that way.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

23. Your assumptions are laughable..

Live in the real world? Im out here and when I said we are abhorred by the carpet bombing of Iraqi kids I was talking about DU where pretty much everyone is. Now back to the point....

Sorry to tell you but 99% of people who I know that are pro-life view it as I described I know *1* jerk who thinks that 'thats whatcha get' other than that for pro-life people its about the unborn being human not controlling somebody.

I cant believe a majority of pro-life people you know dont base it more in the status of the embryo as a human being than about making sure they can control women. Sorry if you know more than 2 pro life folks I'm calling Bravo Sierra on that..

[uppityperson]

25. I can barely understand what you wrote here. Could you try it again please.

Seem to be missing a period or 2, your sentences run on into each other confusing your meaning. This is a serious request, not a snark. Snark may come later, but I'd like to make sure I understand and that was confusing. Thanks.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

28. No problem you did not come off as snarky..

Sorry to tell you but 99% of people who I know that are pro-life view it as I described (They believe in protecting a life that begins at conception, not controlling women). I know *1* jerk who thinks that 'thats whatcha get(for heving sex)'.

I cant believe a majority of pro-life people you know don't base it more in the status of the embryo as a human being than about making sure they can control women. I'm sorry if you know more than 2 pro life folks I'm calling Bravo Sierra on that..

[uppityperson]

30. Thank you.

[Two Americas]

52. important point there

I agree with you that for most people it is a matter of believing in protecting a life that begins at conception, and not controlling women. However, those driving the pro-life movement very definitely have an agenda of controlling women.

We have some unfortunate framing going on about this issue.

If the question is asked as "do you think life is sacred and should be protected at all times?" you get one answer.

If you ask "do you think cops should be monitoring women's behavior and snooping around doctor's office looking for reasons to arrest them?" you get a different answer.

The first question is what many pro-lifers think they are being being asked, the second is what they are really being asked.

If we argue in the context of the second question, we unmask the agenda of the right wing leaders and peel support away from them. If we argue in the context of the first question, we reinforce the potency of the right wing lie and drive people way from us.

Our failure to differentiate between the leaders of the right wing and the everyday people duped into supporting the right wing is a source of much of their success, and this issue is a prime example of that.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

53. Well

"those driving the pro-life movement very definitely have an agenda of controlling women."

Ill be honest I was not there when RoevWade passed into law so I cant say with any authority who was doing what for what reasons but today most of the pro-life folks (and that includes the leadership) is more concerned about what they consider life than power.

"If you ask "do you think cops should be monitoring women's behavior and snooping around doctor's office looking for reasons to arrest them?" you get a different answer."

You'll have to show me this poll or is this just conjuncture?

"The first question is what many pro-lifers think they are being being asked, the second is what they are really being asked."

Not at all thats like saying that if I ask you 'do you believe in a womans right to choose' I'm really asking you 'Do you like to kill unborn babies?' You don't get to ask people one question and than take a question which can only be related if you stretch reality enough to make them monsters and apply their answers to that one.

If one says 'I think kids in school should be protected from abuse at all times' that does not mean they want to establish a new gestapo to spy on teachers in their everyday lives. Sure if you do B you will accomplish A but it is not the only (and certainly not the preferred) means..

"Our failure to differentiate between the leaders of the right wing and the everyday people duped into supporting the right wing is a source of much of their success, and this issue is a prime example of that."

Nope, they just believe that life begins at a different time than you do. If, for extreme example, society decides in 15 years that for the first six months a baby really is not totally human and can be killed you, given you may feel differently, are not 'duped' to feel differently

[Two Americas]

54. you missed my point

Perhaps I wasn't clear. If I may, I will cite one passage from your post and respond and maybe we can clear up the confusion.

If one says 'I think kids in school should be protected from abuse at all times' that does not mean they want to establish a new gestapo to spy on teachers in their everyday lives. Sure if you do B you will accomplish A but it is not the only (and certainly not the preferred) means..

It could very well be code language for doing exactly that. In fact, that is what is happening in schools all over the country. Under the guise of "protecting the kids" we have cops crawling all over schools and serious erosions of civil liberties, and there most definitely is an agenda going on there that has nothing to do with "protecting the kids." People think they are protecting the kids, but what they are getting is a police state.

I think it is important that we do not merely take an opposite position to the right wing lies, because in so doing we are accepting and reinforcing their framework, their context, their premises.

I also think it is important to make a distinction between the agenda of the right wing leaders, and the motivations of their followers.

That is my point.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

55. Wha..

It could very well be code language for doing exactly that.

Or it could not mean that... You're giving slippery slope a *whole* new meaning and applying the most sinister intentions to folks who disagree with you.

I also think it is important to make a distinction between the agenda of the right wing leaders, and the motivations of their followers.

And I think we might have to accept that the agenda of people we disagree with might just not be sinister. It may be, and try to follow me with this, we disagree.. Even the 'leadership' might not have sinister motives on any given issue (of course they might).

[Two Americas]

57. don't know what to say

The entire right wing propaganda effort, that so completely dominates and permeates every aspect of our politics, is based on lies and deception.

I am not "applying the most sinister intentions to folks who disagree with me," I am recognizing - how as a Democrat could I not? - that those controlling the opposition have goals that are in opposition to the needs of the people and that they are garnering support from a significant segment of the population through decpetion and falsehood.

[EFerrari]

29. Maybe it can be seen as the difference between what people say

and what they do.

Take the example of those fake abortion "counseling centers" set up by Republican fake feminists. They lure young pregnant women their by promising their help.

Then, they have the kid listen to the baby's heartbeat before making her "decison". They fill her ear withh all that "unborn baby murder" crap. So, what they're saying is exactly what you describe.

What they're doing is attempting to control a vulnerable person via deceit and manipulation. Christ would be so proud!

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

33. Sorry

"counseling centers" set up by Republican fake feminists

Sorry but one thing I really respect about the preacher at my babysitters church is that the hates politics and labels and makes a point of attacking issues head on irregardless of which party it makes look bad (Poverty, Greed, ....).

They fill her ear withh all that "unborn baby murder" crap.

And this is different than say commercials against Animal abuse showing abused animals how? Seriously?

What they're doing is attempting to control a vulnerable person via deceit and manipulation.

They have a belief about the truth and they share it with others when its for a cause we agree with its called touching, when its something we disagree with its manipulation..

[EFerrari]

35. Let's run it down.

These women call themselves feminists solely to obfuscate their intentions. And, they are Republicans. That's their label, not mine.

These centers do not provide actual counseling by real counselors.

Commercials you watch on teevee are an order of magnitude more remote than having your mind and body manipulated by someone in the same room.

For people who have a belief about a "truth", they are very willing to lie in order to attain their ends. I have no respect for them. So,no. That I disagree with them makes no difference. It's appalling to lie someoone in that position.

/grammar

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

37. Im still holding here

And, they are Republicans. That's their label, not mine.

Does this mean if I can find a center that neither identifies itself as (a) Feminist or (b) Republican you'll let that argument go? Trust me I wont have too much trouble finding it..

These centers do not provide actual counseling by real counselors.

Counseling: The act of exchanging opinions and ideas; consultation.

Counselor: A person who gives counsel; an adviser.

One may not agree with it but it is actual counseling

Commercials you watch on teevee are an order of magnitude more remote than having your mind and body manipulated by someone in the same room.

Ill give you that so lets talk about street protest how much less removed is that?

For people who have a belief about a "truth", they are very willing to lie in order to attain their ends.

You can find some who will break their own rules to accomplish their own ends in *every* group of people.

[EFerrari]

39. For me the issue here is honesty.

My huge Catholic family is full of people who are anti-abortion. But, they'd never lie about it and they'd never try to impose their view in that dishonest way on anyone else.

If they believe they're right, why lie? Another example. They tell these young women that abortion can ruin your health and don't bother to inform them about the risks you run in childbearing. It's all very one sided. That's manipulating the truth, not presenting one

Lol -- my oldest son is probably here because someone who likely was anti-abortion talked to me when I went into Planned parenthood. She didn't fill my ear or try to scare me or guilt trip me but only said, "I don't think you've really thought about keeping this baby." And, she was right. And, I did and I did. The truth can be very effective sometimes. :)

[zanne]

59. OK--Who are you and where did you come from? nt

[Jamastiene]

36. I live in the Bible Belt.

The vast majority of the people I deal with on a day to day basis are pro life jerks who are fine and dandy with the bombing of Iraqi children. You really don't have a clue, do you? You really do need to get out more and meet more of the people outside of the metropolitan areas. The majority of this country is outside the bigger cities, ya know.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

38. And I come from a predominatly Christian family

You really don't have a clue, do you?

I grew up in it, I went to a state university, I have lived both *in* and *out* of the bible belt and I deal with Christians at a more intimate level than you every day, you calling into question *my* understanding of their motivation is laughable.

The majority of this country is outside the bigger cities, ya know.

Rock Hill SC outside enough of the met for you?

[Jamastiene]

40. Rock Hill is covered on every single Charlotte news station.

It is NOT a small town by a long shot. That claim is laughable. You still don't get what a small town really is, do you? You actually consider Rock Hill a small town? What a joke. To answer your snide hateful question: no, not "ouside" enough at all. That is nowhere near what a small town really is.

Well, good for your rich ass, you got to go to a state university. Must be fucking nice. I have to rely on just an associate's degree from a community college in a town where Wal-Mart is our only major employer. A state university for me is OUT OF THE QUESTION. It's called poverty, which you obviously know nothing about with your fancy big city snobbishness.

You are too out of touch to even come close to discussing the truth about the "pro life" movement because you don't know these people like I do. No, spending the night in a hotel in Atlanta or Rock Hill doesn't count as living *in* the Bible Belt. You still don't have a clue.

I live in the state that not only helped Eric Rudolph evade capture from the FBI for bombing the gay bar, the Olympics and the neonatal clinic that you anti choice types like to call "abortion clinics" so you can somehow absolve yourself, but they also hid him out in church basements and wrote a folk "hero" song about his bombing that nurse into blindness and killing a father of three children. You either don't have a clue on what the real "pro life" movement is like down here or you are complicit in those types of activities. Simple as that. .

And yes, I have had to deal with the "Christians" in this shit hole area of the country. Got raped in the name of God by them just for being a lesbian. So don't fucking tell me I haven't dealt with them "intimately." It doesn't get any more "intimate" than that. They think exactly like you do except they are fine and dandy with carpet bombing children, which I suspect you are too underneath your snide rude ass comments. Welcome to ignore, so-called "Christian."

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

42. You have to be kidding..

Rock hill is allot bigger now than when I was down there in the early 1990's and if you want to say the majority of people live in a town smaller than rock hill youre dead wrong, period..

"Well, good for your rich ass, you got to go to a state university."

LOL yea because SUNY Schools are known for people having to be rich... Maybe thats why I held three jobs and took loans..., because Im rich..

"Must be fucking nice."

Oh yea the fat more than a decade later im paying back loans is a trip worth shouting foul language at... Ya sure youbetcha..

"I have to rely on just an associate's degree from a community college"

Your unwillingness to join us in the post 1950s and take out loans like most everybody else does *not* make other people rich, it makes you stupidly stubborn and shows how pathetic your argument is when you have to class bait someone.

"You are too out of touch to even come close to discussing the truth about the "pro life" movement because you don't know these people like I do."

Lets put that to the test you mention Rudolf

Born: Merritt Island, Florida (Population 40K, County Population 531,250)

Oh yea Surely Rudolph is a case study in how screwed up people are limited to small poor towns... Tell you what before you decide to martyr yourself as an example of how if your not poorer from tiny towns maybe your poster boy should not be from a large county with a poverty rate far below the national average... K? The sicko spent the first 15 years of his life in a well off county of FLA (where some of us rich loan taking folk you talk down to might live).

"So don't fucking tell me I haven't dealt with them "intimately.""

Curse all you want you know the less than I do, Ill not return your bile in kind. You're experience is *exactly* the reason you cant speak with authority on them as a whole its limited to a small subsection and is colored by the fact that section is populated by bigots. My life experience touches far more of them from much more diverse walks of life.

"which I suspect you are too underneath your snide rude ass comments."

Pot meet kettle...

"Welcome to ignore"

Yea with an attitude like that Im *SURE* you really know people I mean if they disagree with you you ignore them..

[zanne]

60. Rock Hill S Carolina? Your profile says Minneapolis!

Stop lying to us and tell us who you really are.

[zanne]

58. As a man, I think you should really listen to pro-choice women. nt

It's very easy for a man to be against abortion for any reason. If you found youself with an unwanted pregnancy, you'd see it completely differently, believe me. You have the luxury of "supposing" how you would feel and finding yourself morally superior to women who have to make the real choice. You can argue about it until you're blue in the face but the fact is, you'll never have to face making that choice.

[melody]

21. You may dress it up how you like, but when the core issues are boiled down it's clear

It's about repressing women's reproductive rights. If it were genuinely about human life, we'd
be reaching into impoverished neighborhoods in the US where infants die three times more often than
they do in many third world villages. You don't see these people lining up to adopt those children.
You don't see them going in and setting up programs to aid young mothers. You don't see them backing
legislation to criminalize fathers who abandon their children or refuse to accept paternity. Heavens no,
it's ALWAYS about what the women do.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

26. Whatever floats your boat..

"It's about repressing women's reproductive rights."

I know pro-life folks (and many of them) not opposed to free birth control for women and girls of all ages... It aint about controlling women to them but if demonizing someone who disagrees with you floats your boat have at it..

"If it were genuinely about human life, we'd be reaching into impoverished neighborhoods in the US where infants die three times more often than they do in many third world villages."

Many *many* of them do unless you have real evidence to the contrary Im going to call that a straw man

"You don't see these people lining up to adopt those children."

Bethlehem Baptist church (which members of my family attend) Has a *huge* adoption ministry, pretty much everyone on the pastoral staff, eldership, and a huge number of members adopt from the us inner city. My babysitter is in a family of 5 kids *four* are adopted.

The rest of your rant is completely without evidence and I could google around to find other religious organizations who fill those rolls but youve made up your minds that everyone who might disagree with you on this is an evil bastard..

[melody]

31. It still comes down to an irrational, faith-based argument to eliminate abortion

I'm an agnostic. Free societies base laws on areas of agreement. We all agree a baby is alive when it's born. I don't agree a baby
is alive when it's an ounce of protoplasm that is as reliant on a woman's body for "life" as a tooth or a fingernail.

The few exceptions aside, I see no movement to assist children in any real way.

My right to an abortion has no impact on you whatsoever. On the other hand, your fighting against it has a very real immediate
impact on my life. You bet I consider that control.

Beyond that, I find it nearly impossible to discuss abortion with those who are faith-oriented (and by "faith", I mean any sentiment-laden nonsense about what "life" is). You insist, as always, on shoving your ideas down my throat. Welcome to my ignore list.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

32. Well thats a hell of allot better than

*They are all evil bastards who hate women*

"We all agree a baby is alive when it's born." And in 1820 citizens all agreed that slavery was ok..

*You insist, as always, on shoving your ideas down my throat.*

Wow that was easy! Never once did I say *you cant do this or that* merely stated that the insipid practice of demonizing anyone who disagrees with you seems not to be praticed only by repukes..

[Jamastiene]

41. Somebody's wracking up the ignores today.

Let me guess. Is it the same condescending jerk I just put on ignore too?

[melody]

43. Yep, I just checked n/t

[Elspeth]

11. It's about more than that. Look at the OP and try to connect the dots

...

[melody]

22. One can connect all the dots one likes, but if the picture doesn't fit, it doesn't fit

I've been fighting with NARAL for decades. I've researched this issue with great depth. I used to have
a much more complicated view of it. But we're primates and most real drives turn out to be very simple ones.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

34. No, its really not..

Look it takes allot for me to put the tinfoil hat on and I generally believe in achems razor when it comes to human motivation.

Its far more likely that they believe its human life and *like us* they will fight for the rights of human beings! Than that they really want to put women down so they will do x,y,z...

Folks who were against slavery were not that way because they wanted to control the south they just wanted to apply rights to those who they saw as human.

Im not trying to convince anyone here of anything other than such preconceptions about people because they disagree with you are bad. There is always going to be someone who believes differently than you on some issue and if you develop the knee jerk reaction of dehumanizing them by calling them woman hating bigots we as a people are going nowhere.

[Thothmes]

45. I would disagree with one of your points

While a large portion of Northern society had come around to seeing slavery as a morally repugnant instituton and worthy of ending,by force if necessary. They had very little concern for the plight of the people that were former slaves. Very few people in the North would propose equal rights for the former slaves.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

47. I have to disagree..

I think up until it became war with the south (note I said the 1820's) the north would have been fine with slavery being ended but abominations like the Jim crow laws would not have offended them. My point is that whats wrong is wrong and whats right is right irregardless of what the majority of the populace believes.

Was slavery ok in the 1820's? Hell no but it was legal because people agreed it should be legal. Still your post is spot on with the attitude of a good many northerners who may have wanted emancipation and maybe even equal rights but would have flipped if their kid married into another race.

[Elspeth]

6. But look at the basis of R v W: it's about the right to privacy

And it was right that was inferred, not directly stated. (It's pretty obvious, really, but the word "privacy" is not used explicitly.)

[EFerrari]

8. I think you're right. Sexual subjugation is most harmful not physically

but in the damage it does to a person's sense of their self as bounded, intact, their own -- private.

:thumbsup:

[Elspeth]

10. And the right to be one's own--whatever that means--has physical consequences

Without it, there is no legal basis to fight intrusions of government. What's worse, is that when things are privatized--ie corporatized--the claim is that privacy rights don't matter at all. It's a two-pronged approach: destroy privacy in law and get around it by invoking an exemption from the right to privacy by "privatized" (corporatized) entities.

[EFerrari]

15. That's right. Belonging to one's self is the opposite of slavery,

isn't it? The arena of unmediated personal agency.

As to privatization, are you saying that corporations are given the privacy rights of individuals as the same rights are withdrawn from actual individuals? Not enough coffee yet. :)

[femrap]

44. Compulsory motherhood, IMHO,

is slavery. And then look around see all of the unwanted foster children....here in Ohio, we have over 10,000. And are these fetus lovers adopting? going into foster care? Don't see any!

[EFerrari]

50. The Roe v Wade callers on WJ today were horrible.

You've never heard so many clueless control freaks in you LIFE.

The NOW rep did a good job of debunking the "right to life" bot but, not good enough.

I love the way Republicans don't want the government to control their businesses but insist that it control my body. Fuck them.

[Thothmes]

46. I have to agree

Wedding R v W to the equal protection clause of the XIV amendment appears tenious at best. Maybe a decision based on the IX Amendment would be stronger argument to support the right of choice. JMO

[Jamastiene]

18. Sounds about like them.

For sure. You'd be surprised if you knew how close you spelled it how they really say it. Uncanny.

[Warpy]

12. It's hard to figure out how else it could have been stated

but having the state override the will of a grown human being puts her into the position of being a ward of the state, its temporary property, for the duration of the condition she'd like to terminate. It forces her to risk her health and life against her will. It threatens her life, destroys her liberty, and eliminates her ability to pursue happiness in her own fashion.

Also, don't forget that a state that thinks it has a right to interfere with the decision to abort a pregnancy might in the future think it has the right to compel an abortion.

This is a decision of personal autonomy in deciding medical care, in assumption of risk, and of sovereignty over one's own body. This is why it is such an important issue for so many of us and why it is a total deal breaker when a candidate pontificates against it for any reason.

[uppityperson]

13. Right to Privacy and Equal Access are what I think of as the reasons.

Women with money and/or power will have access to private abortions. Women without, not. Keeping access to a safe legal abortion is important because women will, as they always have, continue to get abortions. Keeping it private is important because this will also keep access to a safe, legal abortion possible.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. I agree.

My feeling is that once R v W goes, the next target is birth control and eventual control of private sexual conduct, e.g., sex for reproductive purposes, not for expression, need, recreation or whatever.

[Jamastiene]

17. They sure inspected

little Willie awfully close during the impeachment though. And a gay couple had to go to court just a couple of years ago to get the sodomy part to be included. So they only enforce it when they damn well please, it seems. :eyes:

[zorahopkins]

24. Misogyny

Much of the opposition to Roe v. Wade comes from misogyny -- hatred of women.

There are plenty of misogynists around, still.

[beltanefauve]

48. Agreed

The problem with Roe v Wade (not a problem for me personally) is that it was upheld due to an implied inalienable right to privacy. The bigger issue, which gets overlooked, is that women get pregnant and men do not. Framed in this way, we can argue that R vs W is a Civil Right.

Why is it that the majority of "pro-lifers" seem to be men?

[Elspeth]

49. Interesting point

Was it Bella Abzug who said "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."?

[Iris]

56. I don't think that's necessarily true.

And there have been studies indicating it's not. Now, as to which group is more VOCAL, I'd say you see a lot more "pro-life" men in the media than women. Someone has to stay home with the kids, I guess.

[zanne]

61. I agree.

Some men are insecure about the idea of a woman having a choice about her body, her career, her education, etc. The sun is setting on the days of the white male dominating this country completely.
Some men can't handle that and don't want to give up any of their power.

[Jed Dilligan]

27. Yep. Give up one civil liberty and they start chipping away

at the next one. Give 'em gay marriage and they'll start taking away straight cohabitation. There is a superparty in the govt. that just wants to be up all our butts all the time.

[kevinbgoode]

51. If the Right's arguments were truly convincing. . .

they wouldn't NEED to pass laws controlling a woman's womb. . .or propose constitutional amendments to do the same.

Let me know when they decide to revert back to that quaint 19th century belief that a male's sperm must not be spilled because THAT is life.