[DouglasKC]

Pornography is an issue which definitely falls under the constitution as a free speech issue. Whether we like it or not, until someone can define exactly what constitutes pornography, which will never happen, it is impossible to regulate. I know people who think any nudity in a film is pornographic. I don’t want the government determining for me what is pornography and what isn’t. We may not like pornography but each of us should determine for ourselves what we want to view or not view.

Moral relatively. This is exactly the attitude that leftists pushed to get a destructive behavior mainstream. And it worked.

Abortion is a totally different issue. While I think it should be left up to the States to ban or regulate it, I can see a perfectly legitimate argument for the Constitution making it illegal. We are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unless we are in the womb, and then the freedom can be taken away at the whim of a mother.

Sorry, you're being inconsistent. If it's not an enumerated power than it's reserved to the states...at least that's the opinion of leftist cause supporting conservatives.

[tacticalogic]

If it's not an enumerated power than it's reserved to the states...at least that's the opinion of leftist cause supporting conservatives.

Are you under the impression that the Tenth Amendment means something other than that?

[yazoo]

“Sorry, you’re being inconsistent. If it’s not an enumerated power than it’s reserved to the states...at least that’s the opinion of leftist cause supporting conservatives.”

One can easily assert it is an enumerated power since the Constitution does not state when life begins. If one believes life begins at conception, then there is no question the fetus is entitled to protection against loss of life without due process. I have no idea what you mean by “leftist cause supporting conservatives.”

“Moral relatively. This is exactly the attitude that leftists pushed to get a destructive behavior mainstream. And it worked.”

Bottom line, I believe in free speech. You happen to believe pornography is destructive even though there is no evidence to prove that. You don’t like it and you think it is immoral, which is perfectly legitimate, but where do you get the right to decide what other people should read and view? In any case, I come back to my argument, unless you can define exactly where the line is between what is pornography and what is not pornography I’d rather not have you determining what I am entitled to read based on what you think is decent. None of you people who want to ban pornography are ever willing to discuss where you think the limit should be. Should it be any nudity as in Playboy, graphic sex acts, simulated sex acts, provocative nude paintings, or just anything that brings on sexual arousal? Please define it for me.