Roe Vs Nuke
- AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
Roe Vs Nuke
I was watching 700 Club and they were talking about Robertson...and from what they said, it seemed like Roe vs Wade was solely based on a woman's (not really of course) right to privacy. FIRST, is that true? That that decision is based on one piddly thing like that, and second, where do they get the idea that the Constitution protects one's right to privacy?
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
- LittleShepherd
- Established Member
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:47 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Georgia, USA
I'm not familiar with the Roe v. Wade case(except for the outcome, of course). On the issue of Constitutional privacy, though, you're correct. While the Constitution does provide for certain freedoms, it doesn't at any point offer protection of privacy.
The modern notion of privacy has come about in reaction to many people being unwilling to visit a physician without knowing that what is said and done in the office is confidential. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the deciding factors in the RvW case, though -- as irrelevent as it is, some people will go to great lengths to avoid the responsibility for their actions.
The modern notion of privacy has come about in reaction to many people being unwilling to visit a physician without knowing that what is said and done in the office is confidential. I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of the deciding factors in the RvW case, though -- as irrelevent as it is, some people will go to great lengths to avoid the responsibility for their actions.
-
- Established Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:57 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Australia
Re: Roe Vs Nuke
How is murder a privacy issue?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I was watching 700 Club and they were talking about Robertson...and from what they said, it seemed like Roe vs Wade was solely based on a woman's (not really of course) right to privacy. FIRST, is that true? That that decision is based on one piddly thing like that, and second, where do they get the idea that the Constitution protects one's right to privacy?
- AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
That's something that's always perplexed me conerning Roe and abortion. How does privacy give you the right to murder an unborn child...but not a full grown adult, or a child, or a baby?
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
-
- Established Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:57 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Australia
It doesn't, all life is sacred and deserves to be protected, especially the unborn! What we have here is a shocking example of just where going down the moral relativism path leads us to.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:That's something that's always perplexed me conerning Roe and abortion. How does privacy give you the right to murder an unborn child...but not a full grown adult, or a child, or a baby?