Roe v Wade (Page 18): Why don't you tell me what your problem is? You don't want women to get out of low wages, or lower wages for the same job. Want to keep men on top do...and in...

Morgan

Marsinah wrote:

Question, Morgan: Where did you pick up your understanding of morality? Seriously.

Why don't you tell me what your problem is? You don't want women to get out of low wages, or lower wages for the same job. Want to keep men on top do...and in control along with the so-called Smaller Government the right rants about.
My morality is just fine, yours on the other hand...questionable.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Morgan wrote:

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.

You quote from the language in the Bill of Rights while arguing it is the Constitution you are referring to. I am confused..~~Exactly what part of the Constitution are you referring to that Jefferson changed the word property to the pursuit of happiness????

“We hold these t***hs to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; .”

So then if it is the Constitution you are addressing is it under this Amendment you are correcting Joy, who is using “property”???

AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the M*****a, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.~~

Or perhaps this Amendment ??

AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The comment about our founding fathers was simply observation of their brilliance and how we would be lucky to have them now as well.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Ricktloml wrote:

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

Your welcome, Rick..
The thought of your description is heart wrenching!!!

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Morgan wrote:

That was three,

Damn spelling check changed "and" to "or" it is still two choices. 🚯

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Morgan wrote:

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.

That is caused by too much swamp/sewer water kool-aid. 😁😎

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

lindajoy wrote:

You quote from the language in the Bill of Rights ... (show quote)

Correction Morgan~~

I said Bill of Rights and meant Declaration of Independence, as I said originally, guess I was really confused trying to figure out what you meant...

Morgan

lindajoy wrote:

You quote from the language in the Bill of Rights ... (show quote)

Yes, my apologies, you're correct, it was the Declaration I was thinking of, I must have had the constitution on my brain.

With that said I was not referring to exact amendments but it was in reference to Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and if you go back to my post I think that was clearly stated why it did fringe in on our unalienable rights.

Morgan

old marine wrote:

Damn spelling check changed "and" to "or" it is still two choices. 🚯

If you want to persist on this path then please explain to me how abstaining is the same as "having sex" with protection. One is having sex, the other isn't.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Morgan wrote:

If you want to persist on this path then please explain to me how abstaining is the same as "having sex" with protection. One is having sex, the other isn't.

Hey dummy, I was explaining the two, not three like you postedtrying to correct me.

Have a nice day.

Morgan

old marine wrote:

Hey dummy, I was explaining the two, not three like you postedtrying to correct me.

Have a nice day.

There's a problem with the people who can't simply say they made a mistake, it's no big deal, until of course you make it one. Here is your original three from "your" post.

1. Tubes tied,
2. Abstain or
3. Don't practice unprotected sex...One, two, three. All different.

Ok, we done here now?You have a nice day also, you must be fun to live with...

Morgan

woodguru wrote:

Yet the unwanted child has a high likelihood of becoming a burden to society that will cost tens (hundreds) of thousands of dollars in welfare.

The morning after pill being readily available (for $10) to any woman who screws up and has unprotected or unwanted sex is actually the best of the best in terms of solutions for even those who feel strongly about pro life. That would cost a tiny fraction of what a******ns do.

That's fine until they'll argue about the time of conception.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Morgan wrote:

There's a problem with the people who can't simply... (show quote)

My mother nurse and about thirty other homeless vets just love living here on the tree farm.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Morgan wrote:

Yes, my apologies, you're correct, it was the Declaration I was thinking of, I must have had the constitution on my brain.

With that said I was not referring to exact amendments but it was in reference to Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and if you go back to my post I think that was clearly stated why it did fringe in on our unalienable rights.

Lololol, I’m just laughing at both of us having specific references while saying something else..It must be “great minds think alike..” And if not thats our story and we’re sticking to it!!

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

lindajoy wrote:

Lololol, I’m just laughing at both of us having specific references while saying something else..It must be “great minds think alike..” And if not thats our story and we’re sticking to it!!

I see you are back home safe. What about an update on the fires.

Here at home my trees enjoying a hard down pour going on for five hours. We just had a flash flood alert for low laying areas. Dosent effect my area.

Carol Kelly

EmilyD wrote:

An interesting sidenote is that Norma McCorvey (alias: Jane Roe) carried her baby to term and gave it up for adoption.

I had forgotten her name, so thank you. She said in an interview years ago that she was used and had always worked trying to discourage young women from a******n. This mass murder has to end.