Right, like women who don't want to be mothers killing their unborn babies...

"angry men" killing their pregnant women out of pre-partum rage is almost unheard of... generally the guys who are mad just skip their child support payments.  Which is cowardly in and of itself as well I might add.

I listened to my third childs heart beat (and watched his heart beating on the 3D sonogram as well) when he was a mere 12 weeks in the womb.  The doctor told my wife to watch what she ate because the baby eats the same thing she does.  If he weren't a "real" baby yet, what she ate wouldn't matter.  But the fact is, he is very much alive... they feel pain, they suck their thumbs, their hearts beat, they can hear music from outside the womb, they adjust their position in the womb when they are uncomfortable.. the list could go on and on.

It's been scientifically proven, over and over, that an unborn baby is just that... a baby, a living being, so I still find it hard to understand why people refuse to admit what science has already proven.  That's the strangest irony to me.  Conservatives are always called "right wing religous wack-o's" because they believe in a "GOD" and refuse to adhere to the sensibilities of science, but when it comes to the rights of the unborn, they refuse to believe that a fetus is a child, even though science has proven that it is.

So if us "right wing crazy people" don't listen to the reason of science, why is it that when it comes to the abortion issue, we seem to be the only ones who adhere to it?  It certainly makes the moral grounds of liberalism appear weak and hypocritical.

There are thousands of things that we take for granted that aren't mentioned in the Constitution but that are still protected.  Take intellectual property for instance.  Sure the Constitution guarantees property rights, but the definition of property has broadened since the 18th century.  And the idea of intellectual property was muddled at best during this time period, and has morphed several times until current day.

Intellectual property is a legal fiction which we maintain because it is commercially valuable.  The only reason the word property is in the name of the term is because we put it there and the only reason we consider it property is because we want it to be property.  Technically something like a trademark or an idea doesn't actually exist.  Does that mean we shouldn't protect it as a property right since there was no clear idea of what intellectual property was when the Constiution was written?  No, because that produces absurd results and is counter to what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

While the Constitution is in many ways a shackle on the way we interpret things, the Founding Fathers intentionally wrote it in broad terms so that future generations could interpret it in a way that would adapt to new problems.  The Founding Fathers didn't address a great deal of things in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean they aren't constitutionally protected. 

The Constitution doesn't even say anything about who is the final interpreter of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court essentially pulled that power out of the Constitution even though you could argue that it isn't actually there.

You see, I just threw out a thought that wasn't in response to anything because you guys all started getting all extreme.

Thats what's really sad.

We think what you believe is absurd. Thats all. That really is all there is to it.

And I mean absurd like believing in the tooth fairy absurd. Like its way out there. So I'm not going to argue that I'm right, I'm arguing that you guys are being closed minded as hell about it. Lighten up, we don't think its murder and we wont. Somebody compared it to killing a tree. Yeah thats about how we feel about it. The tree has no feelings or mind. But its living I guess. But we don't feel bad. It didn't have a personality. I have no concern for a potential person that doesn't exist yet.

Edit: also a "mere" 12 weeks in the womb? Abortions are supposed to be done before then. FYI.

The most obvious example is the freedom of movement or the right to travel. It is not mentioned in the Constitution, but it is a guaranteed right. Can you imagine if someone's right to travel was violated because it was not mentioned in the Constitution? It would be pandemonium.

According to Roe v Wade, a woman is guaranteed the right to an abortion because the fetus is considered by that ruling to be property of the woman.

As for your assertion that the "state has a compelling interest to give precedence to the woman's right to privacy (which guarantees abortion) until the fetus is viable", there is no prior precedence that provides that right.  Never in the history of the courts prior to RvW was there ever a precedent that even remotely implied that a fetus was property of the woman nor has any prior ruling ever stated that the right to privacy and the right to an abortion were in anyway connected.

The RvW ruling stated that the definition of "viable" was the date at which a fetus has the ability to survive outside of the womb... in Miami back in Feb. 2007, a 19-week old baby was delivered and SURVIVED, which is far younger than Roe v Wade had originally stipulated as the earliest ability for a fetus to survive outside of the womb (they estimated it to be 28-weeks).

Now as for your comment that "A fetus does not violate a man's constitutional right"... what exactly does that mean?

If a woman chooses to keep the kid, and the father doesn't want to keep it... can he make the choice to abort the baby?  No.

But when it comes time to take financial responsibility for the child, is he forced under threat of jail time and/or wage garnishment to pay for the child he didn't want?

Yes.

If a woman chooses to abort the child, and the father wants to keep it... can he make the choice to raise the child himself?

No.

The woman can throw him the finger and drive down to the Planned Parenthood and have an abortion, no questions asked.

Therefore, a man's constitutional rights ARE violated, beacause although he by law is considered 50/50 in the raising of the child, he gets absolutely no say in whether or not the child lives or dies.

So here is how the Roe v Wade interpretation of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness":

A woman can choose what makes her happy, but a father and his child's fate are up to the mother to decide...?  And don't start that crap about a baby not being baby until it is born, because science has already disproven this long ago.  Liberals only care about science when it's convenient for their beliefs... but if it disproves them, screw you, they don't care.

You're still supposed to have an abortion before that 19 weeks you just mentioned. If someone decides to have an abortion that late they must have a serious reason for it.

Why do pro-life people act like pro-choice people are pro-abortion? And why do they act like forcing everyone else to adopt the same behavior as you is the morally superior choice?

I think abortion is terrible. But that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. People should make the decision for themselves, just like whether or not they decide to have sex in the first place.

Some people find interracial marriages to be immoral, and find smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol to be immoral. The government is not a moral referee, and it is ironic that many people who think the government should be a moral referee are against government intervention in any other context.

We'll take halogamer for instance. He is against government sponsored healthcare and against "socialism," but he is for the government telling women how to control their bodies.

Why should the government get involved? Shouldn't we let "the market" or social education programs fix the problem? Its just unnecessary regulation on private behavior that the government should have no interest in whatsoever.

Why should the government give tax exemptions to churches? I find that morally offensive.

I can culture my skin cells in a petri dish and they are alive.  My sperm are alive.  A woman's egg is alive.

Of course fetuses are alive.  A sperm is alive and an egg is alive.  Claiming that a fetus is somehow more alive than any of those other things is an arbitrary distinction.  Life doesn't begin at conception, it begins before conception.

Should I be prosecuted for masturbating because my sperm die when I masturbate?  Should a women be prosecuted for ovulating because her egg dies?

Science doesn't distinguish between any of those things in terms of whether or not they are alive, because they are all alive.  So claiming that science is on your side because science says that babies are alive is essentially a circular argument.  You are just stating the obvious.

Now if you want to talk about brain wave activity and things like that, those are better arguments.  But arguing that a baby shouldn't be aborted simply because science recognizes that it is a living thing is an overly simplistic argument.  Science recognizes that bacteria are living things, should we be forbidden from killing them?

I don't give two craps about whether churches get tax exemptions, I'm not "religious" per se... so that's irrelevant.  Give them tax breaks, don't give them tax breaks, I don't care... no one dies either way.

Smoke, don't smoke, I don't care so long as people don't do it around me, because I find it unhealthy and I think cigarette smoke stinks... as long as they give themself lung cancer and not me, I really could care less.  It's none of my business.

Interracial marriage?  I don't care either way, once again, whether you are white and marry white, or decide to marry black or hispanic instead, I don't care... it affects no one on this earth either than the two people who got married.

I have never asked the government to be a "moral referee" as you imply. 

I only ask the government to do what the constitution requires it to do, and that is to provide for the safety and welfare of all individuals who live within its borders.  And children within the womb have zero rights, and that is just outrageous. 

It also has nothing to do with, "a womans body" like you are saying.  If a woman wants to cut off her hand, tattoo "666" on her forehead, mutilate her body, or any other thing in this world, I could care less.. it's her business.  But a woman does not have the right to decide whether or not another being live or dies.  That has nothing to do with "a womans body".  If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should either close her legs, or use the proper protection... that is her right.  And for Christ's sake, it's not that damn hard to do! Use a condom or birth control... it's not rocket science!  No one is forcing the woman to get pregnant, that's why Trojan make condoms in multiple sizes... just to make sure there is one for every size... or hell, use the pill!  There are so many ways to avoid this issue it's not even funny.

Not to take the proper precautions is just lazy... just like avoiding your responsibility to your child when you couldn't keep your legs shut.