like fear, anger is also an emotion which quite often leads to violence. indeed, humans may experience anger more often and with greater intensity than many other speacies known to be naturally violent. whather a shark, for instance, ever attacks out of anger i wouldn't know but my guess would be that hunger drives it's violence more than anything. man obviously kills often simply to eat as does the shark. a stockyard to raise cattle to be butchered is not a crime but to kill a human or even a pet out of anger is as society has matured has become a crime. it seems quite obvious to me that anger, greed, envy, jealousy and such are emotions that occur naturally in humans moreson than other species and it's tough to argue that these emotions do not often lead to violent tendencies. couple that emotional violence with violence caused by simple survival instinct and i'd say humans not only are naturally violent but perhaps the most violent minded creatures on the planet.

actually the point i was trying to make is that in this thread several posts have indicated that a friend dropping by is not a problem and "friends fist" appears in many profiles. so is someone who says that in their profile not at least a friend of someone they are interested in for romance? if not then what is it to be "friends first"???

i can't imagine giving a thought to anything i might get from my ex. but then she's past history. your ex obviously isn't.

good luck proving that humans are not violent by nature. as you've said, violent crime in america has been in constant decline just the past few decades. as civilization has matured it's been a tough roe to hoe getting beyond our violent tendencies. that violent crime continues to drop only through strict enforcment as evidenced by our record high prison population will attest to a naturally violen species where violence is curbed only by enforcement and punishment.

quite true as illustrated by a predominantly democrat voting base in california where prop eight was passed to ban gay marriage by both religious concervative democrats and republicans. if big government intervention in marriage is not a case of more government in our lives i can't imagine what is.

i never called you a nazi or anything else. i never personally attack a poster. my comments were directed at what you posted. i'd never assume to know your thinking and never suggested that the thinking i commented on was yours. in fact i associated that line of thinking with hitler. you say your in this for a learning experience that's great. now you've learned how i feel about selective abortion to purify a species from whatever disease happens to be in the minds of those in power.

my ex is a gemeni as am i and i've never seen two less compatible people in my life. that marriage was as big a mistake as her believing that there's actually something to astrology.

so often lately i here conserbatives actually fighting the idea of less government in our lives. goes to illustrate why i'm a member of no party. here we have government actually repealing laws about how we conduct ourselves in the bedroom and it's the more conservative, less government crowd that's complaining.

i have tons of problems with this line of thinking. first off, it sounds like something right out of hitler's "mein kampf". laws to keep the races pure? then there's the question of who decides which "diseased women" can have babies and who cannot. but the most glaring aspect of this post comes in the idea that a woman would choose to abort a pregnacy that happened "through whatever means". other than artificial insemination i know of only one other means to get pregnent and it has nothing to do with dirty public toilet seats. i here often heard conservative religious types saying that abortion should be illegal 'except in cases of rape and incest.' to those i ask' is a human fetus caused by rape or incest any less a human fetus than that conceived by an unwed teen or an extramarital affair?

i think the court got roe v wade right. a woman does have an equal right to due process as a man in this country. but at the same time i adhore the thought of a woman choosing abortion for ANY reason other than her own health. just because the government says you can have a choice doesn't mean there's not a wrong choice and in my mind depriving a fetus of life for any reason than risk to the woman is a wrong choice. still, a choice that the government should stay out of.

simply dead wrong. first of all the senate is and always has been a part of the legislative branch. and you say i need a history lesson? i wouldn't induldge in your personal innuendo but i will say that article three giving judicial power to the courts was in the unamended constitution as agreed to by the founders.

all three branches are never involved in passing laws. that's the sole domain of the legislative branch. yes the president has the veto but that can be overruled again by congress. and of course the courts have the power to rule on the constitutional merits of such laws when challenged.

marbury v madison being the first subject in every ameirican law school i'm well aware of it's implications, none of which gave the court any more power than it already had. if anybody was the power monger it was then president thomas jefferson. at any rate, had marbury not happened as it did, there would be no judicial oversight today.



i never suggested that roe was good law. i simply pointed out that not everybody agrees on what is good application of law and what is legislating from the bench. you just illustrated my point.

your big on asking where things are stated in the constitution. here's one back atcha. where in roe v wade does it say that women can kill their babies? the ruling struck down laws. it made none. it was based on the fourteenth amendment's equal due process clause. are you saying women should not be afforded equal due process of law?

and of course the declaration of independence is not law nor does the constitution grant any rights. yes, it PROTECTS certain inalieanble rights but it grants none. those we had at birth.

but no law is unconstitutional unless and until it is declared so by a federal court. what you and i think is unconstitutional is moot as the law goes.



as i've said, what you see as legislating from the bench many others see as good application of the law.



indeed it does. sec. 2, art III; "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,................" etc. tons of case history on federal court rulings on unconstitutional law can be traced to this clause in article three.



and yet roe still reigns.

is there a restrition about who can bring what complaint to the un?

it's just curious that you want less government except in the lives of women.

do you not think that the civil rights acts apply to all the states? the tenth amendment does not in any way restrict federal government from imposing nationwide laws. the tenth mendment merely reserves to the states power not deligated to the federal government to the states. article three clearly defines the powers deligated to the judiciary. but hey, if you think you can make a case to overturn roe, go for it.

and a woman's freedom to choose is not the right side of the issue?



There are 9 seats on the Supreme Court, there hasn't been five Conservative / Libertarian justices on the Supreme Court since before Roe v Wade.




actually five of the current justices were appointed by conservative republican presidents. and the decision itself was hardly along political lines as seven justices were in the majority.

so as a republican you want to reduce regulation. i agree wholeheartedly. i'm for less government involvement in our lives. and easy to go with lower taxes too. but would repealing roe v wade not mean more government involvement and regulation in the lives of half the people in america? republicans and democrats are very selective about where government is to big.

it's always, "legislating from the bench" when a ruling goes against you. many in america see it as equal justice. but of course what you and i think of the ruling is moot. fact is it hasn't been overturned even with predominantly concervative justices in the majority. wondering how if it's so easily overturned it's lasted these decades?

can't happen. roe v wade, you see.