What kinds of unnecessary medical procedures does the First Amendment allow me to force upon people who disagree with my positions?
I vote Turkey Drumstick Anal Palpations™. Which, unsurprisingly, is pretty much what it sounds like.
So… you want me to stop exercising my First Amendment rights? Or you’re fine with me exercising them, as long as I say what you want me to say?
It seems like kind of a long post to you to describe how laws are made in this country. Are you sure you can’t just Google it?
No, I want you to realize that trying to legislate others to live by your particular religious beliefs, is un-American.
But I guess you really don’t care about America, as a concept, so long as it plays by Vatican rules.
This is Bricker’s way of saying, “If it gets put into law, it’s morally right!”
He’s funny that way.
Ah, that would be the ‘other factors’ then. 
Hey, I don’t make up the rules, I just use 'em.
I couldn’t remember for sure where your family was from, it coulda been Brazil for all of me. But the majority of US-born people who list themselves ethnically as Hispanic also list themselves racially as white.
The last abortion I had was when I was 4 weeks along. They did a transvaginal ultrasound. It was uncomfortable. I’d imagine if I’d gotten pregnant by sexual assault, it could have felt traumatizing. I saw the picture. It wasn’t a baby, or anything even like a baby, really. I know; I’ve had two babies who I loved dearly and they grew up into awesome kids that I also love dearly. The blob on the screen? I felt nothing for it, other than a sense of dread. Took my pills and went on home to miscarry. No biggie.
If I’d kept that pregnancy, and brought it to term, my kids would have suffered for it. You know, my born kids. The real ones. I don’t regret it, I never even think about it. I still cry sometimes about the cat I rescued that had feline leukemia and had to be euthanized. That cat was alive, it had feelings and a personality. The blob? Not so much.
And when they tell you they’re not using the word in a legally significant sense, you continue to insist that they use the word only in a technically accurate legal manner. Even when multiple people explain to you that they’re having a non-legal, if hyperbolic, conversation using the vernacular definition, you continue to argue.
You absolutely know that “murder” is a legal term with a specific definition, so you don’t even have the excuse of ignorance for making that error, as have many people with whom you have argued vocabulary. It was deliberate and inflammatory usage.
If you, deliberately and with malice aforethought, use legal terminology incorrectly, then you have no room to chide others for having conversations that happen to contain words that are sometimes used in a legal sense.
That’s why I called it that, and that’s why I’ll call you on it if I see you doing it in the future.
I would like you to recognize that you can exercise your rights to oppose abortion without trying to incorporate that opposition into the force of law, which is how the First Amendment is supposed to work when it comes to religion. To me, advocating that abortion be banned or restricted by law is little different than advocating that the law require all citizens to be Catholic.
No. His Church, St. All-Or-Nothing’s if memory serves, said he should support adequate health care systems. It’s Republicans who oppose such things. The proper list, in order of priority, should be Republican first, then Christian, then person.
You can talk all you want. Proclaim to the sky your intent to eschew abortions for yourself, and exhort others to follow your example. But you have no First Amendment right to force others to submit to your religious dogma against their will.
And yet at the same time deeply and traditionally American. We’re kinda schizo that way. How else to explain blue laws?
But it’s not different to me. To me, a fetus is a human being, so to me, advocating this kind of law is like insisting that we keep robbery illegal – it may coincide with my acceptance of the Seventh Commandment, but it also represents a secular principle that I want all persons to abide.
I have a First Amendment right to persuade the legislators. The legislators have an Article II right to pass the law. The President has an Article I right to sign it.
Which one of those rights do you wish to take away?
The board started acting up as I was writing this, so my apologies if it winds up being multiposted or anything.
That is not the question that I asked. I did try Googling to see what forms of medical procedures are considered to be persuasive speech protected by the First Amendment, but I’ve been unable to find anyone else who shares your particular views on the subject:
I am sure you’ll agree that I have just as much right to exercise my First Amendment freedoms by attempting to convince others of the merits of my positions as you do, so I’d like to know what sorts of unnecessary medical procedures could be mandated for people who want to do things that I find objectionable. You can let me worry about actually getting such a law passed, I just want to know what sorts of forced, unnecessary medical procedures the First Amendment covers. Because it’s certainly news to me that the First Amendment allows any such thing, but you’re the lawyer so you should know.
Nope, it wasn’t malice aforethought – it just slipped out. You’re right: it’s not murder, and I’ll be more careful about saying that.
In this case, we disagree about what is morally right. Why don’t you just accept my definition of ‘moral’ and we can all stop this fussin’ and feudin’?
Because there are more of us than there are of you? Because none of us are demanding that you betray your morals by having an abortion, and we expect and insist upon the same respect from you.
And this sort of bullshit is worse than simply losing politically, and refusing to admit it. This is losing politically and using legislative bullshit and flim-flam to gain an end that could not be gained in the legitimate and honest way. If this is such a great idea, why can it not be done by means other than sordid?
On top of that, the only women who will suffer from these needless restrictions are those women who cannot afford to evade them. Which will be precisely those women who would make the painful choice not to bear another child because they cannot support said child. The law will mean nothing to the woman who can afford a plane ticket. Would you support abortion laws that apply only to those women who don’t have at least a gold credit card? That’s the practical effect of what you are supporting here. Perhaps forbid abortions for women with poor credit ratings? Why not, if you are willing to support laws that enforce themselves only on the vulnerable?
These laws are dishonest, undemocratic, and unjust. Republican, in a word. Too bad its come to that, perhaps you can have it clean and polished later.
This is bizarre. You propose a series of rights you consider fundamental. The Supreme Court has also found the right to abortion to be fundamental. So, maybe, that’s where you sit back and say that that’s one of the rights to which the power to legislate and pass and enact laws don’t apply.