lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Shoot em both!!!!

Ohhh sorry you were looking for an answer other than???

Both are guilty of child abuse, reckless endangerment, rape, incest, etcetcetc...

As to a******n if the child wants it she will get it....

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

kevie: Is that how you arrived here?

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she has two choices. Have your tubes tied, or abstain or don't practice unprotected sex.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

You mean like in the black ghetto neighborhoods?

Morgan

That was three,

Morgan

I see, I see you have the conservative wedding cake mentality. If an establishment is privately run the answer is no, the only time taxpayer money could possibly intervene is through Medicaid if the life of the mother is in danger, and that is only if the place accepts Medicaid, many don't.

Reading your posts on this your views seem to waver back and forth.

Morgan

It is life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, who are you that you quoted our Constitution as Life, Liberty and property? It was written as property under John Lock and his ideology of America's Trinity.
The eighteenth-century British political philosopher John Locke wrote that governments are instituted to secure people's rights to ‘life, liberty, and property and in 1776, but Thomas Jefferson begged to differ. When he penned the Declaration of Independence, ratified on the Fourth of July, he edited out Locke's right to ‘property’ and substituted his own more broad-minded, [h]distinctly American concept,[/u] the right to ‘the pursuit of happiness.’ " Jefferson the best president ever.JMO

Now the pursuit of "Happiness", is all inclusive to the freedom of choice over my body.

The Law is for the protection of "Life" is for the individual, there in the flesh living and breathing. independently.

Liberty defined as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

So YES Joyv it as ALL to do with our unalienable rights, for damn sure, and NOT an overreaching government.

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

morgan: Do your math!....It is only two! Abstaining or not practicing unprotected sex is essentially the same thing!

ldsuttonjr Loc: ShangriLa

morgan: The sick puppy who's comprehension of the Bill of rights is sick!

Morgan

1. Tubes tied,
2. Abstain or
3. Don't practice unprotected sex. One, two, three, "or" does not negate the third practice.

By the way to abstain is to do without, to decline from.

protected sex is participating in the act, but with protection.

Two completely different things Einstein.

No wonder why your comprehension so pitiful.

Morgan

What is obvious yet predictable is your lack of knowledge the of the Constitution

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

I believe you mean the Declaration of
Independence~~~

Jefferson didn’t beg to differ with Locke...He took study of the phrase “property and pursuit of happiness” and drew from it this conclusion.~
Offered as yet another view that I believe in...

“Familiar as all this sounds, Brook is wrong on three points. John Locke lived from 1634 to 1704, making him a man of the seventeenth century, not the eighteenth. Jefferson did not substitute his “own” phrase. Nor is that concept “distinctly American.” It is an import, and Jefferson borrowed it.

The phrase has meant different things to different people. To Europeans it has suggested the core claim—or delusion—of American exceptionalism. To cross-racial or gay couples bringing lawsuits in court, it has meant, or included, the right to marry. And sadly, for many Americans, Jefferson might just as well have left “property” in place. To them the pursuit of happiness means no more than the pursuit of wealth and status as embodied in a McMansion, a Lexus, and membership in a country club. Even more sadly, Jefferson’s own “property” included about two hundred human beings whom he did not permit to pursue their own happiness.

The Greek word for “happiness” is eudaimonia. In the passage above, Locke is invoking Greek and Roman ethics in which eudaimonia is linked to aretê, the Greek word for “virtue” or “excellence.” In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote, “the happy man lives well and does well; for we have practically defined happiness as a sort of good life and good action.” Happiness is not, he argued, equivalent to wealth, honor, or pleasure. It is an end in itself, not the means to an end. The philosophical lineage of happiness can be traced from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle through the Stoics, Skeptics, and Epicureans.

Jefferson admired Epicurus and owned eight copies of De rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, a Roman disciple of Epicurus. In a letter Jefferson wrote to William Short on October 13, 1819, he declared, “I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” At the end of the letter, Jefferson made a summary of the key points of Epicurean doctrine, including:

Moral.—Happiness the aim of life.
Virtue the foundation of happiness.
Utility the test of virtue.

Properly understood, therefore, when John Locke, Samuel Johnson, and Thomas Jefferson wrote of “the pursuit of happiness,” they were invoking the Greek and Roman philosophical tradition in which happiness is bound up with the civic virtues of courage, moderation, and justice. Because they are civic virtues, not just personal attributes, they implicate the social aspect of eudaimonia.

The pursuit of happiness, therefore, is not merely a matter of achieving individual pleasure. That is why Alexander Hamilton and other founders referred to “social happiness.” During this political season, as Americans are scrutinizing e******ns of 2018 and p**********l candidates, we would do well to ponder that......

No matter what position you believe in nothing can take away the brilliance of our founding fathers... We would wish for such in this day and age...,

Ricktloml

Thanks for the history LJ

And who could consider being "happy" as ripping their baby from their womb, and reforming his/her tiny body on a tray to make sure no body parts were left behind. This is the sick "right" the pro-a******n crowd defends

Morgan

The Declaration of independence...Um... No, Linda not at all, more to the point of it being incorrect.
This was written by; on and about the Constitution.

Ms. Hamilton has a Ph.D. in English from Berkeley. This article was originally published under the title, "The Surprising Origins and Meaning of the “Pursuit of Happiness."
QUOTE:
“The pursuit of happiness” is the most famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence. Conventional history and popular wisdom attribute the phrase to the genius of Thomas Jefferson when in an imaginative leap, he replaced the third term of John Locke’s trinity, “life, liberty, and property.” It was a felicitous, even thrilling, substitution. Yet the true history and philosophical meaning of the famous phrase are apparently unknown.

What this means Linda is that he(Jefferson) took the quote and used it with his substitution of "the pursuit of happiness", which he saw to be more fitting to the ideology of America.

Also, my comment wasn't about all the different meanings and perceptions of Happiness or the pursuit of it but about correcting the poster stating "property" rather than the "pursuit of happiness" as originally stated in our Constitution and it did not include the term property.



With the word usage of you, I am not sure if you're directly referring to me or not, but I do not take away any credit away from the framers, but with that said, with the fluid movements to society, additions/amendments are inevitable and inescapable.

Morgan

No one is "pro-a******n". No one wants that, maybe you should step back and understand the real issue, the overreach of the government.