They keep trying to sneak that into our local votes. Calling a fetus a person instead of fetus etc...
So far no go.

A woman should have the right to choose what she wants to happen to her body.

Freedom of religious expression is not being impinged anyway.

I guess freedom of speech would have to be compared to separation of church and state for that to be resolved,

I am talking about spoiled a$$ Christians who think they should just have the right to spew their religion to the world when the world is not all Christian and shouldn't have to be suffered with it.

Practice your religion but keep it to yourself like all other religions do.

freedom of speech causes me to have to listen to people 'spew' all types of things, in public forums and public arenas, but it is still no less a right given them

As long as it is not religion or prayers we are good. Religion is a personal thing and needs to be kept that way,

trust me, the religious 'suffer' just as much listening to some of the things non religous and religious alike spew in public , but thats a 'suffering' that is easily resolved by paying attention to something else or leaving,,,,noone is ever gonna say things that please EVERYONE and 'offend' NOONE..

Religion is a personal thing and should be kept that way.

so are opinions, but that doesnt stop people from sharing them or the government from allowing them to do so,,,

But opinions are not mentioned in the constitution as something that needs to be controlled but religion is.

actually religion is not mentioned as needing to be controlled in fact 'congress shall make no law RESPECTING the establishment of PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof'


indicates a stand of 'no government sanction or control' whatsoever

wah-wah-wahhhhh!


Why do all the bleeding heart liberals think their opinions don't stink????


Cry me a river Wang-Chung... Noone wants to hear it...

the first amendment does not give anybody the right to free speech. in fact the constitution gives nobody any rights whatsoever. it merely protects 'certain innalieanble rights' that every human is born with. in this case it restricts government from impinging free speech but you were given the right to free speech when you were born.

in my home, at work, in public forums and in many public arenas you are not free to speek as you wish. in my home i can toss you out if you say something that offends me. at work you speak your lousy opinion of your boss or whatever he/she does not want to hear at peril of your job. in this forum say something the managers don't like and you're history. in a public arena gathering of neo-nazis just try and foster human dignity and see what happens.

the first amendment applies ONLY TO THE GOVERNMENT. it gives no citizen any rights nor dose it restrict anybody's rights. it restricts only the actions of the government as regards free speech. compare it to a traffic law, say speeding, if you will. the law dosn't apply to a pedestrian who doesn't even have a car. it applies only to drivers. the first amendment is no different in that regard. no citizen, only the government can break that law that is the first amendment. not unlike being pregnant, huh. must be a woman to get pregnant. must be a government in the u.s. to violat the fist amendmendment. a citizen simply cannot bust that law just as a many simply cannt become pregnant. a citizen, your employer, a forum or i can restrict your speech any time, any place that is not under government jurisdiction.

so far, but i can see it happening in years to come. i do agree that the court got it right in roe but i have to wonder, had district attorney wade brought up the issue of citizenship of a viable fetus if he would not have prevailed in the case. things would be quite different today and not necessarily for the worst, imo. for examply i think it abhorerrent that a woman can choose to abort a fetus in the case of rape or incest. the fetus did not choose the means of conception. why should it pay for the misfortunes of the mother to be when adoption is an option? hell, at leat put the baby on a park bench and let it take it's chance at survival. somebody will likely come along and save the baby. but to intentionally kill a viable future human being??? despicable in my mind.

as i said, i do think the supremes got that particular case right, that a woman is afforded rights that apply under the fourteenth amendment but i also would not think very highly of a woman who would choose to kill a fetus simply because she'd be inconvienienced in her life. morals are not laws, laws are not morals. laws simply reflect the moral and ethical standards of SOME of society but hardly everybody or even a majority in a society. in fact in most cases where protection of rights are concerned, laws, as john adams would say, 'protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.' i cannot think of a more miniscule minority amoung living beings than a fetus in the womb during the first or second trymester. we trump the rights of murderers who would kill an innocent human to roam free by incarceration or the death penalty. i've not decided in my mind when a fetus becomes a human, if ever, or if the fetus has rights that trump those of the woman. nor has the court. it's an issue my moral compass still struggles with and the supremes did not even want to go there in roe nor have they since because nobody has made a convincing case. but that does not mean that a convincing case cannot someday be made. i'll likely be worm food by then but, hey...

not so in the least. you don't have to listen to anybody spew anything just as i don't have to listen to christians spew their beliefs. you just don't seem to even want to understand what is meant by free speech as regards the first amendment, mh. the first amendment does not give anybody the right to free speech. it merely restricts government from impinging free speech. in my home, at work, in public forums and in many public arenas you are not free to speek as you wish. in my home i can toss you out if you say something that offends me. at work you speak your lousy opinion of your boss or whatever he/she does not want to hear at peril of your job. in this forum say something the managers don't like and you're history. in a public arena gathering of neo-nazis just try and foster human dignity and see what happens.

the first amendment applies ONLY TO THE GOVERNMENT. it gives no citizen any rights nor dose it restrict anybody's rights. it restricts only the actions of the government as regards free speech. compare it to a traffic law, say speeding if you will. the law dosn't apply to a pedestrian who doesn't even have drive a car. it applies only to drivers. the first amendment is no different in that regard. no citizen, only the government can break that law. not unlike being pregnant, huh. must be a woman to get pregnant. must be a government in the u.s. to violat the fist amendmendment. a citizen simply cannot bust that law. a citizen, your employer, a forum or i can restrict your speech any time, any place that is not under government jurisdiction.

and the government does not restrict your sharing your opinion or your thoughts on relegion anywhere you choose in a private setting.

that's the basis of your argument on the topic??? is it really???

understood, government applies to LAWS, not employment policies and private property

so no LAW should be able to abridge a CITIZENS freedom to say a prayer, even in a public place,,,,or on a loudspeaker,,,

the VENUE can have their own policies, but the GOVERNMENT can make no law restricting the citizens speech

nor public settings,,, with exceptions mentioned in the constitution(none of which are religion)

but there is no law prohibiting you from saying a prayer in a public place or on a loudspeaker UNLESS it's done at a government sponsored venue. then the first amendment does in fact restrict your speech. again, all speech is not free and the separation clause does restrict free speech in this case. i didn't write the amendment. the founding fathers did and they wrote it specifically because king george's religion WAS THE LAW and 'we the people' wanted no more religion intermingled with government and law. hense, 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.....' yes, it goes on to say, 'or restricting the practice thereof....' SO LONG AS it is not practiced in a government sponsored venue. no, it does not say those words in the amendment itself but it is a court precident established by case history which is where the term, 'separation of church and state' originated.

but ONE OF WHICH IS RELIGION. what's so hard to understand about that. the first amendment specifically mentions religion in the separation clause which restricts free speech of religion in a government sponsored venue. no restrictions against free speech are mentioned at all in the constitution. restrictions against speaking threats against the president or joking about bombs at an airport security point AND RELIGIOUS SPEECH AT A GOVERNMENT SPONSORED VENUE have all been ruled restrictions and prohibitions NOT in violation of the first amendment.