| Author |
Message |
    
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 945
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:22 pm: | 
|
Scrotis,
You have the right to peaceably assemble and seek redress for grievances from the Government.
You have the right to keep and bear arms.
Soldiers can't be quartered in your home in peacetime, without your consent.
These are Rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
There's a whole bunch more, the smart guys wrote them down just so we wouldn't forget.
Every now and then, the "Nine Old Men" decide we have some other rights, like the right to be informed of our "Right" to remain silent, or the right to choose to have an abortion.
Some day, some other bunch of "Nine Old People" may decide that we've all watched enough TV, and that the police don't need to inform us that we have the "Right" to remain silent.
Or some other bunch could decide that the Court was just wrong in 1973, (or in 1972, or in 1965) and that people of the several States should decide the legality of abortion for themselves.
The "rights" announced by the Court are transitory at best, and are always subject to attack.
Remember when the Court decided that the States had the "right" to outlaw sodomy and later decided "opps, we got that one wrong".
Or how about that real winner "separate but equal" and the "opps, we got that one wrong" several years later.
So I guess the long and short of my position is that we have certain "Rights" and that we have certain "rights" under our federal Constitution.
I'd like to believe that our "Rights" are inviolate.
As to our "rights" they blow with the prevailing winds, and presently, the prevailing winds require that: we be informed of our "Right" to remain silent; segregation is inherently unequal; sodomy is a fact of life; and that we have the "right" to choose to choose to have an abortion.
Just thinking out loud here in Maplewood.
TomR |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 584
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Scrotis,
That is no fun. Now, seriously, since abortion isn't listed in the constitution your exercise is somewhat futile because it leaves it up to interpretation. Heck, people argue about the second amendment yet it is explicity written out that we have the right to bear arms, and yet they still argue that point (did I start a thread drift?).
Campbell,
I don't think you are correct about your most people come at it from a religious basis. Are these the ones we see on TV? Yes, of course, because those folks are interesting and bring in the viewers. It's kind of boring for folks to say they simply think killing a defenseless, yet to be born person is wrong without yelling, carrying signs, and preaching the word.
Bob,
I hear you. But then why do we have Neo-natal units? Let the fetus come out and if it survives without outside intervention then fine. If it dies then fine too because it wasn't viable outside of the womb. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3111
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:36 pm: |
|
It's not a fetus after it's born.
In the uterus, southerner, a fetus obtains oxygen through the mother's blood stream. It doesn't use its lungs. Once it is born, the baby has to breathe to obtain oxygen, or in a neonatal unit, obtain oxygen through medical means.
I cannot believe you don't understand the difference.
|
campbell29
Citizen
Username: Campbell29
Post Number: 338
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 8:26 pm: |
|
SLK - as to whether or not RvW is constitutionally explicit - I would venture, that after 30 years, its rather a moot point. Americans have grown used to privacy in their personal actions, whether it involves the medical procedures they receive, their prescriptions, their phone records, email and internet searches, and what they tell their physician,lawyer and spouse. Certainly an argument could be made that if you don't own your own body, how can you expect privacy in your sexual relations, medical records, correspondence or anything else. And despite the fact that pro-lifers believe otherwise, the federal and state governments have yet to decree a fetus a person.(otherwise last year when I was pregnant, I would have had an extra deduction)
Secondly, its a genie that's real hard to stuff back in the bottle. If RvW is ever thrown back to the states, firstly, abortion will remain legal for most of the population and for those states which outlaw it, any law prohibiting it will have to be so neutered as to make it impossible to enforce. Naturally, there will have to be exceptions for rape and incest (but does the state need to verify this), fetal deformities (does it mean a heart growing outside the body, or a missing toe), health of mother (gestational diabetes, or a threat of suicide) or any other number of exceptions.
That said, I think most Americans feel downright squemish when we talk about allowing the government to control what we do with our bodies. Who's to say that a state can't pass a law that would enable your estranged brother to force you to donate a kidney, or blood, because you are a biological match?
Southerner: I would be interested to know of any major players in the pro-life movement who don't come at it from a religious bent. BTW - I don't mean groups like "feminists for life (which is a lay group of the catholic church) or Eagle Forum (the Phyllis Schafley group which is decidely evangelical in flavor) Perhaps in the south, there's a wider variety of pro-life groups - but up here, they're pretty god oriented. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Scrotis -
Quote:Lydia- One thing I never did accept of the pro-choice argument is that if a woman has consenual sex and then she becomes unexpectedly pregnant then all the sudden she is a victim and no one else counts. Well, more then she is involved in this matter at this point that alot of people just want to ignore.
First of all, " a lot" is two words. Just bugs me is all.
Secondly, a woman who has consentual sex and is unintentionally pregnant is not a "victim", she's a woman who did "it" for pleasure (the horror!) and the sperm fertilized the egg which was not the anticipated end game.
The onus falls on women to raise children, and when a child is unexpected the burden usually falls on the child borne into a hectic life.
Southerner:
Quote:Lydia,
You think nookie is gross? Maybe you need some .....,
You're gross, not nookie - I would say go screw yourself, but that would be:
A. Redundant
B. Redundant |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4264
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:44 pm: |
|
southerner, your neo-natal idea doesn't work. There's survival, and then there's survival; preemies with lung problems, vision problems, and all the other developmental problems that go with them. That's hardly a positive outcome. It's like going to Atlantic City as written by Shirley Jackson, spin the wheel and get a healthy child ... no child ... or a seriously disabled one. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 511
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:54 am: |
|
Lydia-
I have no problem with "sex for pleasure," and I don't believe most people do. I just don't want the potential consequences of such actions to be forgotten either.
Yes, I agree society views women as the prinary caregiver of children but doesn't mean their partners don't asisst as well.
Thanks on the "a lot" correction-I have a bad habit of doing that! 
Campbell29-good post, but I do take exception about RvW being a moot point. If so, then all this timidness over Roberts/Alito's SC confirmation wouldn't exist. The battle is still alive and well....a good article on the subject is in this weeks Time....
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1151788,00.html
Tulip-so with your logic are you saying that you are ok w/ abortions for all 9 months?
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4267
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
Quote:I have no problem with "sex for pleasure," and I don't believe most people do.
And most people don't have a problem with abortion being legal and available either, at least on some level. It's the highly vocal minority who are trying to take those things away. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4403
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
Ever heard of the word viable? |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1617
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
Scrotis,
Quote:I have no problem with "sex for pleasure," and I don't believe most people do. I just don't want the potential consequences of such actions to be forgotten either.
I think a lot of people do have issues with "recreational" sex - hence the trend towards preaching "abstinence only" as birth control instead of suggesting severla of the almost 100% effective birth control options that are legal.
In the US, it's sort of a badge of honor for a teenage boy to carry around a condom, but girls taking responsibility for birth control is still suspect.
There are a lot of derogatory words for a woman who has sex "for fun" - slut, whore, skank, but not one equivalent word to describe a man who has non-reproductive sex.
IMO - the double-standard for women has a lot to do with unwanted pregnancies. You can preach birth control until the cows come home, but until women (especially single women) can reconcile their sexuality with the overwhelming societal disapproval of "recreational" sex among women, we are going to continue to have millions of women getting pregnant who don't want to have a child. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 516
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Tom-
true to a point, most people want abortion to exist but with restrictions....Roe is also consider "bad law" that should be overturend due to judicial overreach (my biggest cocnern)....more later...work work work! |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2938
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
SLK: I sympathize with your being in the middle on this one. On abortion, unfortunately, the middle of the road is only for dead armadillos (to paraphrase Jim Hightower). Either you support abortion rights through Roe, which is all we got, or you oppose Roe and thereby oppose abortion rights. There is no middle ground.
Roe may not be great law, but consider the alternatives. Before the SC had the temerity to rule on Roe, women who got pregnant and did not want to carry the child to term had very few safe options. Congress and states were not reacting to the changes in society that allowed for more sexual freedom for men and women. Women were disproportionately affected by unwanted pregnancies, and resorted to back alley abortions (leading to death or sterility in too many cases) or had enough money to go to a quiet professional clinic or leave the country. In other words, they had to become criminals to deal with their problem, bear inordinate physical risk, or carry the unwanted child to term which creates a host of other problems--physical, social, and economic. There was no way out.
It would be best if the entire society stepped up and took responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. By this, I mean that Congress would legalize abortion so it would not remain clouded by Roe v Wade; and we would make carrying a child to term much more acceptable to reduce the need for abortions. To do this would require universal health care for kids and moms, much easier and less costly adoption alternatives, universal quality child care, and a social acceptance of single-parenthood (including flexible work rules).
But I don't see any of this happening anytime soon. So, bad law or not, I support Roe v Wade because the alternative is too frightening and dangerous for too many women in America. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 517
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 3:12 pm: |
|
ESL-
But in 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey is where abortion came up again. It's legality was confirmed but it ok for state to allow restrictions.
70% of the US population are ok with abortion w/ restrictions and since 1992 so is the SC..why can we not give abortion back to the states (where ti belongs) and let it be as such? |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3113
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Scrotis:
No, I am NOT "for abortions for 9 months." Obviously, if a child is born early, as my second was (six weeks early, three pounds!) you do everything imaginable. He had to be born by C-section because my life was in jeopardy. It was an emergency, and we stayed with him during snow storms and freezing temperatures in January, 1987 to hold him, watch him, and help him grow.
It's worth it, indeed. We commuted from Hackettstown, where we lived, to Morristown at the neonatal unit for a month.
So don't get me wrong. If there's any way to save the lives of both mother and child, I can document my being for it.
And what's a "partial birth abortion" anyway? Is it a C-section? If so, please do take every effort to save the life of the child, through pre-birth, birth and neonatal care.
How could you think I am advocating anything else?
You are thinking in black and white. Your thought requires a little subtlety, and you need to reserve judgement about people a bit. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 2941
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 4:05 pm: |
|
SLK: The fear is that if you give it back to the states, then some states will completely eliminate it. Not a pretty picture for women who need an abortion in a state where it is not legal. Other states will place such severe restrictions as to make it almost impossible to obtain an abortion in a safe timeframe.
No one is dealing with the bigger issue of reducing demand for abortions by making child rearing more financially and emotionally feasible. This is something that both sides can get behind if they are willing to really solve problems, and not simply posture politically. |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 5:06 pm: |
|
I don't know why anyone, including myself, bothers to respond to Scrot. It's obvious that he's a troll, gleefully rubbing his hands at the controversy he's caused. Phooey. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 589
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:20 pm: |
|
tulip,
I just don't get your stance. On one hand you have no problem killing a child, yet on the other you did what it took to save your preemie. Does the amount of prematureness matter to you? Would you have tried any less if your child was 10 weeks premature or 15 weeks? I just wish more pro-choice people would be honest in their true thoughts - which is very simply - a woman has a right to determine if her child lives or dies. Isn't that the bottom line truth that no one likes to look at? I know it is not a pretty thing to think about but that is the case. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Eat Shoots -
Quote:I mean that Congress would legalize abortion so it would not remain clouded by Roe v Wade; and we would make carrying a child to term much more acceptable to reduce the need for abortions. To do this would require universal health care for kids and moms, much easier and less costly adoption alternatives, universal quality child care, and a social acceptance of single-parenthood (including flexible work rules).
YES!
Tulip,
"Partial Birth Abortion" is a pretty grim procedure, and extremely rare.
In a nutshell, most abortions are done in the first trimester. The Woman's cervix is dilated and the thickened cells are removed by a doctor. Some people believe the thickened cells are a "baby", I consider them a "fetus" which has the potential to develop into a human being, much as a germinated seed has the potential to become a tree, but isn't yet a tree.
Southerner: See above.
Partial birth abortions are done when the woman is fairly advanced in the pregnancy - around 5+ months. The doctor removes the developed fetus in pieces. You know the pictures the anti-abortion people have on placards? Those are "partial-birth" abortions.
I think something like .01% or abortions are "partial-birth". There are usually a lot of extenuating circumstances involved in them - from what I've read, it's not "La la la - geez, I forget to get an abortion in my first trimester, oh well, better late then never"
for example, a friend of my mother had what is documented officially as "partial birth abortion" when her baby died in utero.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 7:48 pm: |
|
What a minute? How can it be a baby if it is still inside the body (your last sentence)? Didn't you call the same thing in your same post a fetus? Which one is it? I'm confused. Is it a fetus or is it a baby, and at what point does the miraculous change take place?
And I love your comparison between something that can grow into a child with something that can grow into a tree. I think a few posters took the tree route. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 518
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Lizziecat-
Not only do you not undertstand the true consequences if RvW is overturned but you don't even know what a troll is. |
Lydia
Supporter
Username: Lydial
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:56 pm: |
|
Southerner -
I think a "partial birth abortion" (BTW - a term cooked up by the right to lifers to describe a medical procedure that only very technically and under certain circumstances is an "abortion") does cross the line over to baby as opposed to fetus.
Of course, "partial birth abortions" are so rare, and without data explaining the background, even the less than 1% of overall abortions that fall into the catagory of "partial birth" doesn't tell us much onthe surface.
How many partial birth abortions are blighted pregnancies? Have Spina Befida? brain-dead? Threaten the mothers' life?
From what I've read, a goodly portion fall into the above catagories - so a teensy portion of pregnant women terminate their pregnancies in the 2nd to 3rd trimester.
You, Southerner, have no statistics nor have done any research into the subject of abortion - I've never gone so far as this about a fellow MOLer, but I think you're a huge dork-wad.
There. I said it. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 950
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:38 pm: |
|
ES&L,
You conceed that "Roe" may not be great law, but argue the alternatives are less than appealing.
Isn't that the same argument that supporters of warrentless searches are positing?
How much judicially created bad law are you willing to accept?
Reducing the demand for abortion is not the bigger issue. It is a different issue than the courts making bad law.
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 951
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Lizziecat,
How did Scrotis cause the controversy?
I had thought that WE caused it.
TomR |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 597
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Lydia,
This is so typical. What kind of research must someone do on abortion. It is not that complicated a subject. Either we as society give women the right to kill their unborn children or we don't. What is so complicated? Does it matter if the unborn child has birth defects or will be the next Nobel Price winner? No, it doesn't. If the mother wants to kill it then should we or shouldn't we allow her to? I say yes. I don't need a bunch of over analyzed bull mularkey on this subject.
I think your real issue is that I call it what it is. While we agree on the matter of abortion, I just wish folks would be truthful. When a women goes to a doctor's office, the doctor can give her all the stats and all the outcomes available, but the doctor does not make the decision. The final question is always the same - do you want the doctor to kill or let it continue to live. It's a tough situation to be in but at least face the reality. But rather than analyze you can call me names. Deep down, you know that is the final "yes" "no" decision. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3125
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
Southerner:
Two questions for you:
1) how can you kill something that isn't yet alive?
If it's not yet born, some would say, it is not yet alive.
2)Can't you see that?
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
tulip,
We agree. I never said the child was alive yet. Where did you get that? But, come on, we all know what happens. So, if it eases your guilt not to call it killing then fine, but you and I both know that is exactly what it is and I bet you that deep down all women realize an abortion is simply killing their yet to be born child. You and I don't really disagree. You just can't look at the cold hard truth. You are a typical liberal who has to invent some other reason to clear you of guilt.
However, another issue then is if a woman is on the way to the hospital to give birth and is murdered, should the murderer be charged with one count of murder or two counts?
I am pro-choice and have thought long and hard on this topic. As much as I don't like the idea of killing a defenseless unborn child what else can we do. We can't force women to be responsible so we should just leave it at the status quo. They are the ones who will have to live with their decision for the rest of their lives. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10443
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Lydia, dork-wad? What the heck is a dork-wad? |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Scrot;
I understand the consequences if Roe v Wade is overturned because I remember what it was like before Roe v Wade. And I have seen the consequences of failure to provide reasonable sex education in this country, as well as the consequences of the failure of contraceptive methods. And finally, I have seen the consequences of the birth of unwanted and unloved children.
As for knowing what a troll is, it's you. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 606
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Then why in the name of legal abortion would you ever respond to him? If he's a troll then leave him alone! By responding to him he no longer becomes a troll because he has you!!
(Scrot, I don't think your a troll, but if I did I sure as heck wouldn't respond to you. Some folks don't have self restraint I guess.) |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4430
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 1:21 pm: |
|
"I never said the child was alive yet". By saying "child" and "yet" you are saying alive, as a child, in utero. A child is alive and is a child at the point in which it is living outside the womb. An embryo is alive, and is not viable outside the womb and is not considered to be a child.
Southie- What do you think of the i.u.d. as birth control? |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3994
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
I can't wait for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. That date will go down in history as the beginning of the end for the social conservatives. It might not seem so at first, but as soon as a few young women start to die from black market abortions, the backlash will start. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 607
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 2:43 pm: |
|
tjohn,
That is why Roe won't be overturned. Conservatives are not that stupid. We don't play the martyr so you guys can get back into power. Sure the far right wants it overturned but they are a small minority. That is the beauty of the current conservative movement. We have been able to keep our loonies in check a lot more than the Dems have. The Dems loonies run the show which is why they keep losing. If the far right ever took control then I'd expect the Dems to take over. So far that hasn't happened and I don't see it happening. But, I know it makes you northeast libs feel better about your sorry political situation to think all conservatives are neo-cons. Keep believing it and keep losing.
Ffof,
I have no problem with abortions or any contraceptive devices. I am pro-choice. I just don't sugar coat it like most other pro-choicers. I realize my position advocates the killing of unwanted children. It's a tough position but as a society we don't have another option.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 538
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Lizzie/tjohn-
Pay attention: If RvW is OVERTURNED, abortion WILL NOT BE NATIONALLY BANNED but will go back to the 50 states of the US.
Don't believe me? From the pages of wikipedia:
"a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion in the U.S. Rather, such a decision would simply send the issue back to the individual states. The most likely outcome would be a patchwork of laws varying from state to state running the gamut from a full guarantee of abortion rights to a complete ban on abortions, depending on the state."
Now, SC decisions on subsequent cases of RvW, specifically 1989's Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and 1989's Planned Parenthood V. Caseyillustrate that it is constitutional for States to put reasonable restrictions on abortion. And in many polls, close to 70% of Americans wish for abortion to continue to exist WITH restrictions.
So guess what, abortion is basically not going anywhere and if it is given back to the states where it CONSTITUTIONALLY belongs, and a particular state decides to outlaw it then so be it, it is the will of the populace.
As I have argued consistently, BOTH sides of the abortion debate need to sacrifice some of their positions in order to meet a solution agreed upon by most.
Abortion with restrictions is the middle ground with details to be worked out.
Lizzie-a TROLL is one that causes problems on boards (usually with one of opposite opinions). If I am "causing problems" simply because you don't agree with me then get over it.
And yes, you prove you don't know anything about RvW.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4276
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
Well yes, it will be state-by-state; but the first back-alley deaths in South Dakota will resonate through our national media, and voters in Florida and Ohio will wake up and pay attention.
Here's another pantload from the conservatives: states' rights on abortion laws, while every election cycle for the last generation has called for a constitutional amendment banning it. Well what's it going to be: a national ban or the choice of individual states? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 609
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 4:01 pm: |
|
tom,
"back-alley deaths" - are your referring to the child or the mother? |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4432
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 4:21 pm: |
|
both, you ninny. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10448
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 5:29 pm: |
|
And wait until, say, Alabama or Georgia passes a law making it illegal for an Alabama resident to cross a state line to obtain an abortion. Then the fun will really start.
Probably about twenty states will allow abortions roughly with the limitations of Roe. The rest will ban them, some even if a mothers life is in danger.
It will be interesting to see the reaction of people like Soctus and Southerner if their wife or daughter has a pregnency that threatens her life in a state that bans abortion totally and doesn't allow a resident to leave the state to obtain an abortion.
It will be very interesting.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2545
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 6:48 pm: |
|
And wait until, say, Alabama or Georgia passes a law making it illegal for an Alabama resident to cross a state line to obtain an abortion. Then the fun will really start.
BobK has a point. Talking about "back-alley deaths in South Dakota" (Do they have back alleys in South Dakota?) is dramatic, but the real fireworks will come when some dad is thrown in jail for taking his teenage daughter across state lines for an abortion, or some small town family doctor is arrested for performing an abortion on a 14 year old local cheerleader.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2546
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 6:51 pm: |
|
BobK: Can Georgia make it illegal for an Alabama resident to cross a state line for an abortion? Is that constitutional? Sometimes you make me laugh.  |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10451
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
LOL, I orginally only said Alabama, but added Georgia to bring this up close and personal for Southerner. Missed the second reference. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2549
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 7:09 pm: |
|
BobK: Southerner should understand that to good "northeast liberals" like you and me Alabama and Georgia are the same thing - just some place "down there". |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Yeah, someplace with a nice chunk of electoral votes!
BobK and anon,
You guys are hysterical. Let's keep coming up with off the wall scenarios. Let me ask something. Us conservatives have been in power for 12 years now. Is abortion still legal? Has Roe been overturned? No and No. I'll give you libs credit for marching out the boogey man once again for political reasons. I understand it and expect you guys to use one of your last cards. But, Roe will not be overturned. It's been what, 30 years or so. How many years must pass before you guys stop worrying about something that won't happen. I liken it to my right wing pals who think all liberals want to take their guns. That isn't the case, but the right wing will pull it out at election time to scare folks. It's politics and I get it. You guys need every vote you can so I expect the abortion card. Luckily, it won't sway many people because it is a non-issue.
Lastly, Bobk, I am pro-choice for about the 50th time. So, if your scenario ever happened I would be standing with you arm and arm. But it won't. Would you stand with me arm and arm if the libs started going house to house taking our guns? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 545
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Bob K-
So you are saying that only 20 states will allow abortions in the first trimester and 30 states will outright ban them? Proof?
If you know anything about Roe, the whole thing started because Roe argued that the Texas law(s) criminalizing abortion except for cases where the mother's life is endangered was "vague."
How it was "vague," I have no clue, but that was the case presented to the SC.
More importantly, in their RvW decsion, the court allowed for exceptions for abortions to occur in the second trimester, specifically if the mother's life is endangered.
My point? Since most states allowed for mother saving abortions to occur before RvW there is no indication that they would be banned if RvW is overturned...
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2557
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Yeah, someplace with a nice chunk of electoral votes!
How many do Georgia and Alabama have, compared with New York and California?
Southerner and SLK: I have no idea whether Roe v. Wade will be reversed. However if Justice Alito ever gets an opportunity to vote to reverse it and does not he will be skewered by the extreme Right. Look at how they went after Justice Kennedy recently. If Roe were overturned there are at least one or two States where abortion would be criminalized in almost all cases. I believe at least one State, perhaps Nebraska, has already passed such a law. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10456
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 5:31 am: |
|
The only things that will stand between Roe being overturned is Justice Kennedy and Ginsburg and Stevens staying alive until there is a change in administration.
Scotis, most of the states with Republican controlled legislatures will ban abortion. A state like Georgia has tons of pro life Democrats in their legislature as well.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 9:47 am: |
|
anon,
Okay. I guess you want to start pulling out anything that helps you. Yeah, California and New York really helped you in 2004 and 2000 didn't they? While I don't think the SC will reverse Roe, I love that they make the left squirm on this issue. And BobK, those three will have to stay alive for a long time. I don't see a Democratic Pres for a few more terms. Especially, if your power brokers stay under the spell of Hillary. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10459
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 11:14 am: |
|
Southerner, I think I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats for President, including the current one the first time around. Hopefully the next GOP politician elected wouldn't consider it his duty to appoint justices who will overturn Roe, as GB has. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 613
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Bob,
I don't think GW did this. I think he simply nominated conservative judges who share his philosophy. I would hope a liberal Democratic Pres would do the same (Clinton did). Let's make a little side bet or agreement. How many years must pass before you will agree that Roe won't be overturned? If in 5 years Roe is still in place will you then rescind your statement that Bush is only trying to overturn Roe with these nominations? What about in 10 years? or 20?
My main point is that these conservative judges will not vote to overturn Roe. You guys give the far right a little to much credit. They make for great newsclips which is the only place you folks in NJ see them. I live with them and the vast majority are fine with the state of Roe (most of the mud-slinging on this issue is strictly for political gain on both sides). But again, I am amused that the libs are worried about this issue. It diverts their attention from the liberal issues that this conservative SC will take a hammer to. Just to throw out one issue, I would bet that Miranda will be overturned before Roe and when it happens the left will be left with their shorts down by their ankles. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 550
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Bob K-
And do't forget about the many pro-choice Republicans that exist as well...
Roe v Wade in theory should be overturned...but it won't...too much politics involved.
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4999
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
The suggestion that a future Supreme Court would not overturn Roe v. Wade due to politics, runs up against the position of Justice Scalia, as expressed in his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey -
Quote:Of course, as the Chief Justice points out, we have been subjected to what the Court calls "political pressure" by both sides of this issue. Maybe today's decision not to overrule Roe will be seen as buckling to pressure from that direction. Instead of engaging in the hopeless task of predicting public perception -- a job not for lawyers but for political campaign managers--the Justices should do what is legally right by asking two questions: (1) Was Roe correctly decided? (2) Has Roe succeeded in producing a settled body of law? If the answer to both questions is no, Roe should undoubtedly be overruled.
The deciding factor, then, is how many justices would agree with Justice Scalia's position, that it is appropriate to overturn Roe? Justice Thomas has done so, in writing, as did Chief Justice Roberts' mentor, the late Justice Rehnquist.
So, it's not an academic exercise to discuss the possible overturning of Roe. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 614
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Scrot,
Sorry I took your thread on a different line. I'll agree that Roe was probably poorly constructed case law and you are probably right on that position.
However, as you know, it is a losing prop for the Repubs if they make a play to overturn it. We would play right into the hands of the Hillarys and Boxers if this ever happened. I'm very confident that this SC won't touch it. I'll agree that the looney right might get quite pissed when another decade goes by without any movement, but hey, where are they going to go? Are they going to go third party like the looney left often does? I don't think so. Most conservatives, even the looney right, are pretty pragmatic and they realize to allow the libs to take control would really be a disaster.
But, I do hope that the day after Alito is confirmed the SC starts ripping apart all that liberal case law that has been around for decades. While the libs are watching the roof and Roe I hope we destroy their foundation case by case. That is why I am absolutely giddy these days. Even if Congress goes Democratic (which I don't think will happen) we still have the power of the veto with GW and the SC is untouchable. Beautiful! |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 555
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Nohero-
Good post! And great quote from Scalia which I totally agree with....
BUT...again, politics is in the way and will always be....
Yet again, sometimes I ask myself this silly question. If somehow a NATIONAL vote occured on the issue and the majority of the US populace voted to overturn RvW, would its supporter then relinquish their positions...?
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2563
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 3:52 pm: |
|
SLK: It is a silly question, but the answer is: Of course not. Just like if a majority voted to uphold Roe those who think it was wrong would not change their position.
Southerner: Do you realize that Ginsburg and Breyer are the only two justices appointed by a Democratic President in over 35 years? There hasn't been a "liberal" majority on the Supreme Court since the 60s. So please tell me what "liberal" decision of the Supreme Court is going to be reversed any time in the near future. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2564
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
SLK: It is a silly question, but the answer is: Of course not. Just like if a majority voted to uphold Roe those who think it was wrong would not change their position.
Southerner: Do you realize that Ginsburg and Breyer are the only two justices appointed by a Democratic President in over 35 years? There hasn't been a "liberal" majority on the Supreme Court since the 60s. So please tell me what "liberal" decision of the Supreme Court is going to be reversed any time in the near future. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2565
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
How did that happen? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5087
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2006 - 8:50 pm: |
|
I don't see a conservative SCOTUS ripping apart Roe, but instead allowing locals to limit it's scope with parental notification, the other side of medical information being allowed in the decision if not mandated, partial birth abortion, etc.
As well, maybe something with Campaign Finance Reform. There's a case coming before it about some advertising in the Midwest that might see some trimming of that travesty.
But I'd love to be surprised! |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 10
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 7:04 am: |
|
No one says it better than Ron Paul:
As the Senate prepares to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito this week, our nation once again finds itself bitterly divided over the issue of abortion. It's a sad spectacle, especially considering that our founders never intended for social policy to be decided at the federal level, and certainly not by federal courts. It's equally sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not.
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.
Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.
Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves.
January 31, 2006
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 570
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 - 7:57 am: |
|
Bravo Threeringale-awesome post!
Start a Revolution or shut the hell up...
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page