who supports right to choose

[BJean 16]

This is a refreshing article. Thought you all might find it interesting.

Katha Pollitt Katha Pollitt – Wed Jun 3, 7:23 am ET

The Nation -- There were lots of young people in the crowd, and at the microphone, for Monday evening's spirited rally in Union Square to honor Dr. George Tiller. It was quite a contrast with the last gathering occasioned by the murder of an abortion provider, the candlelight vigil at Columbus Circle in l998, after the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian. Back then, the crowd was small and middle-aged and rather dispirited. This time, people were awake and angry. It's about time. Time to demand federal legal protection for abortion rights. Time to demand that law enforcement take seriously the violent anti-abortion underground. Time for doctors to show some spine, defend their colleagues who perform this necessary service to women and reintegrate abortion into normal medical practice. Time for women to come out of the closet and talk about their abortions, so that people will realize that the woman who terminates a pregnancy is their wife, their mother, their sister, their friend.

It's time, too, to stop the pretense that the "debate " over abortion consists of two equally extreme positions, and that wisdom resides in the mushy middle, where everybody disapproves of abortion except when they want one for themselves or someone they care about. There's only one set of extremists here, the one that uses language like "babykiller," " Nazi," "murderer," and "death mill," kidnaps and murders providers and clinic workers,burns and bombs clinics and drives cars into them, posts pictures of clinic workers and their families on the internet, and harrasses patients on their way to get care. Only one side writes like this about the murder of Dr. Tiller: "But I also know joy. Not the shallow type of joy but a deep resonating joy. I feel joy that no longer will this wicked man slay the judicially innocent. I feel joy because justice, albeit of a rough variety, was visited on someone who so thoroughly opposed a culture of life and who worked so assiduously to spread the culture of death. I know joy because the truth of Scripture that those who take up the sword shall die by the sword is seen as authoritative. I know joy because I know that no longer will Dr. Tiller be sucking out the brains of people, or torturing people with saline or dismembering people in utero. How could a sane person not feel joy at the death of a mass murderer and a terrorist?"

backwaterreport/Covenant News That's Bret MacAtee, Michigan pastor and Constitution Party activist. People mock the word "choice" --it's consumerist, euphemistic, wimpy, calculated. But one thing you can say for it: It honors the individual conscience. If a desperately ill pregnant woman wants to risk her life to give birth, if she wants to carry an anencephalic fetus to term so it can die in her arms, or have her rapist's baby, or become a mother at 14, or produce octuplets, pro-choicers are not going to compel her to abort. Pro-choicers don't go around lecturing girls and women that they will blame themselves forever if they have a baby they may not be equipped to raise well. They don't paint gory pictures of the horrors and dangers of childbirth to scare pregnant girls and women into ending their pregnancies with a quick and safe termination. They don't tell women Jesus is going to send them to Hell if they sacrifice their futures to the whims of a wayward sperm -- although they might mention from time to time that the Bible nowhere mentions abortion. Pro-choicers don't blow up churches or assassinate the leaders of Operation Rescue. Only one side wants to force women to live by its so-called morality, and only one side murders and bombs to make its point. Only one side has a terrorist wing. In the days to come, let the public discussion acknowledge that.

[pattygreen 5]

I agree in the seperation of God and State and abortion is a huge example of that...it should not be made illegal because of someone elses beliefs...If you don't agree with abortion then don't have one!!! It's that easy!!!

So, everyone should just mind their own business? We shouldn't try to protect people from killing other people? Seeing that prolife people feel that an abortion kills a human being, that's like asking them to stop helping to stop injustices. If a man was going to kill a child, and felt it was okay to do so, shouldn't others step in and try to stop that killing? We have laws against that. The problem lies with the prolifers belief that the baby in the womb is actually a baby, and not a blob of tissue. Try to put those who believe that way into your shoes. If you felt that every baby that was being aborted was the killing of a human being, then you would be able to see our stance on the problem and get a sense of how we feel.

[pattygreen 5]

It is true that the bible nowhere mentions the word abortion. But that is because it is a fairly new term for the act. The bible also never mentions the word Trinity, either, but the 3 fold personhood of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is still real. The bible does not have the term 'The Rapture', yet bible believers know and understand that the taking away of believers in Christ before Jesus returns will happen. The word 'abortion' does not have to appear in the bible to get an understanding of what God says about the life he created in the womb.

[pattygreen 5]

These huge disagreements about what the Bible says and what God wants are the reason that we need to ensure the separation of church and state.

I know that born again Christians are certain that they have all the answers. But they do not. They just have the answers that make sense to THEM. And when they tread on our toes with their beliefs regarding the laws of the land, it is just the thing that reeks of discrimination and intolerance and the exact thing that causes religious wars, suicide bombs and aircraft being flown into the sides of buildings. Yes, we're back to that. 'nuff said.

And your answers make sense to you!

Please check out this link.

http://www.worshippingchristian.org/constitution_and_religion.html

[pattygreen 5]

The initial purpose of the first ammendment was to protect the church from government interference not the other way around. Today people who cry out 'separation of church and state' don't really get what the 1st amendment was trying to do.

[BJean 16]

patty you are completely mistaken about the First Amendment. It is not about the protection of Christians. It is to keep the government from discriminating against cetain segments of society. It is in place to ensure that people can worship however they want. It was not written to ensure that we have a Christian nation. I don't know where you read that, but you should read a little more about the history of this nation and about our founding fathers. I mean read the real truth, not the convenient truth.

United States of America 

This article is part of the series:

United States Constitution

Original text of the ConstitutionPreamble

Articles of the Constitution

I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII

Amendments to the Constitution Bill of Rights

I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V

VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X

Subsequent Amendments

XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV

XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX

XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV

XXVI ∙ XXVII

"First Amendment" redirects here. For other uses, see First Amendment (disambiguation).

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[BJean 16]

Ok I looked at your link. No wonder you said what you did. That article is exactly what I was talking about when I referred to a convenient truth.

The author of your article has sliced and diced each word to create a meaning that the author wants it to mean. (And what you want it to mean.)

It is easy to see why you are mistaken about why the First Amendment was written. You've conjured up a convenient truth.

Just like the Repubicans are trying to conjure up a new history for the history books which is to conveniently make it look as if the Bush administration was not the worst and perhaps the most dishonest administration in history.

[luluc 6]

how i miss green's quips here.....hope your still reading!!!

[pattygreen 5]

Ok I looked at your link. No wonder you said what you did. That article is exactly what I was talking about when I referred to a convenient truth.

The author of your article has sliced and diced each word to create a meaning that the author wants it to mean. (And what you want it to mean.)

No. Those like you who want it to be about protecting the government from church have turned the original intent of the amendment around so that it is about protecting the gov. from church instead of what it was originally written for, Which was to protect the church from gov. interference.

Why would they write up something to protect the government from religion when back then it was the churches that needed to be protected from the governments infiltration and dictatorship. They wanted to get away from that.

[BJean 16]

We are obviously not communicating well, patty. I wasn't saying, nor was the info I posted saying, that it is protecting the "government from church" which is ludicrous.

You can read for yourself without me or your right wing source and it clearly states:

The First Amendment "..."expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion,..."

So it keeps the government from interfering in religion - period. It says people can't force others to establish a religion and be a part of it and at the same time, it says that the government cannot interfere with people worshipping any religion. Clearly the intent is to provide that the government and people's religion should be separate.

[pattygreen 5]

I'll say it again. The First Amendment, whose purpose was to protect religion from government interference, has been "interrupted" to mean almost exactly the opposite! Now, according to the "majority" on the Supreme Court, government must be protected from religion, a view that is contrary to what the First Amendment declares and to what the Founding fathers intended.

[pattygreen 5]

We (the government)don't and never have needed to be protected from Christianity. belief in God and his word does no harm. It protects us by laying down the laws as God deemed fit for us. This country was formed on that faith. It was the church that needed to protect itself from government interference. That was why the fonding fathers wrote the first amendment. They never intended for the government to kick out or get rid of God's good book and our abiding by it.

[pattygreen 5]

Like I said the people in this nation are calling what is right, wrong and what is wrong, right. They have it backwards. God will not continue to bless this Nation if we don't change and repent.

[pattygreen 5]

So it keeps the government from interfering in religion - period.

You said it.

Yet the gov. continues to interfere by trying to make laws that go against what God deems 'right'. The gov. wants to allow gay people to marry, they should not be interfering in that. God said no already. The gov. allows abortions , and they shouldn't be interfering in that. God said no to that also. The gov. wants to keep the 10 commandments out of its buildings. They should not be interfering in our christian nation. The first amendment was written to protect the church from gov. interference. Not the opposite as you and others seem to believe.

[rodriguezequal 3]

When they say church and state they don't just refer to Christian churches...all beliefs should be protected!!!!