| Author | Message | ||
     anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2524 Registered: 6-2002 |
Because of thread drift in the smoking ban thread and the discussion between Scrotis and me (and some others) about abortion, I decided to Google the opinion of the Supreme Court. Here is the operative paragraph: This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. I think this clarifies the Court's reliance on the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the "Right to Privacy", not just "equal protection" as well as the fact that the Court was not adopting the District Court's reliance on the Ninth Amendment. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2526 Registered: 6-2002 |
Link to Roe v. Wade: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#op | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 461 Registered: 10-2005 |
Thanks Anon, for setting up a separate post and for doing some homework.  But please read your quote again. The SC is indeed upholding the District courts decision using the 9th amendment while bringing the 14th Amendment themselves. "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In my opinion, it is kind of difficult to find privacy protections in the 14th Amendment (see above). It may be implied, but on very loose terms. Privacy protections are implied much better in other amendments, specifically the 9th. Think about it, a pregnant woman seeking an abortion under the equal protection of the law, but who else in society can get pregnant besides a woman? So if women can only get pregnant how can one seek equal protection under the law. I still believe with all I have read that the SC was trying to show it wasn't violating the equla protection clause of the 14th amendment by denying a fetus equal protection because of the uncertainity when life begins. A great Law reference website (Findlaw.com) seesm to agree with my claims (or vica versa). I found an article about a week ago but now I cant (how frustrating!). Thanks for the honest and civil discussion Anon, I hope we continue to this way, and whoever else likes to join! | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10366 Registered: 5-2001 |
What does liberty mean? To me it means being able to lead your life as you see fit, subject to not injuring others. This brings you back to when life begins I admit. Any arguement about only women being able to get pregnant is a straw arguement. If a man got pregnant he would have the same rights as a woman in the same condition. The fact that this isn't likely to happen is irrelevant. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 463 Registered: 10-2005 |
Bob K- Thank you for your input. I wasn't intended on making any argument of the sort, just trying to rationalize the SC decision reagrding to RvW. If the SCJ were seeking "equal protection" under the 14th Amendment for women then it doesn't make sense since only women can get pregnant. So yes, I agree with you.... | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2527 Registered: 6-2002 |
Scrotis: You might be right about their endorsement of the District Court's reliance on the Ninth Amendment, but I think you are confusing separate clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is acompound sentence with separate clauses. The "equal protection" clause is not germaine. They are relying on the "privileges and immunities" clause: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; Look again at the language of the opinion: This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, They are not saying anything about "equal protection". The are stating that the "right of privacy" is a "privilege or immunity" which the Stae cannot abridge. Or perhaps it is a "liberty" which the State cannot deprive one of: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; It is no wonder that scholars of various persuasions have a problem with Roe v. Wade | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10370 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think the strict constructionists would interpret "liberty" to mean involuntary servitude, given the reason for the 14th Amendment. They would dip into their tea leaves to devine the thoughts that were in the heads of those who wrote the amendment and those who ratified it. The plain truth is that a lot of what is in our Constitution is purposely ambigious, simply because the framers had to satisfy a number of factions. Interestingly, Ben Franklin (probably the smartest man at the convention) didn't think it would last. It has, and has been amended so few times as to be almost a miracle. } | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 464 Registered: 10-2005 |
Anon/BobK: Courtesy of Wikipedia, came across this interesting information from reading about the Planned Parenthoos v. Casey SC case back in 1992 (my bold): Four provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 were being challenged as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade, which first recognized a constitutional right to have an abortion in the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The "informed consent" rule under the Act required doctors to provide women with information about the health risks and possible complications of having an abortion before one could be performed. The "spousal notification" rule required women to give prior notice to their husbands, and the "parental notification" rule required the same of minors to their parents. The fourth provision imposed a 24-hour waiting period before obtaining an abortion. When the case came before the Court on review, Pennsylvania defended the Act in part by urging the Court to overturn Roe as having been wrongly decided. Now, please see below an attempted definition of Due Process, esepically in relation to the Constitution: Substantive Due Process The courts have viewed the due process clause, and sometimes other clauses of the Constitution, as embracing those fundamental rights that are "implicit in ordered liberty." Just what these rights are is not always clear, though life, property, and freedom from imprisonment are some of the better established. Some of these rights have long histories or "are deeply rooted" in our society. For example, by the way battery has been defined by courts, common law held for centuries that people have the right to refuse medical treatment. Now, even if states changed the definition of battery to exclude unwanted medical procedures, many courts would find that right under the "liberty" part of the due process clause. The courts have largely abandoned the 1930s approach when substantive due process was used to strike down minimum wage and labor laws in order to protect the "fundamental right to contract." Modern substantive due process doctrine protects such rights as marriage, bodily-autonomy, private sexual activity, contraception, bearing and raising children and, perhaps, the extension of most of the Bill of Rights to cover laws passed by the States. However, what are seen as failures to protect enough of our basic liberties and what are seen as past abuses and present excesses of this doctrine continue to spur debate over its use. If the right at issue is considered a fundamental right, the government is prohibited from infringing that right unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. The concept of a compelling interest has never been well defined. Interesting....Due Process is vague in definition and mentions no explicit comment on Privacy but the SC found abortion to be a fundamental right based on this? Hmmm.... Sorry, I am tryign to make this post at work and shouldn't be. My thoughts may not come out clear on the matter....super-busy...later! | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 443 Registered: 1-2004 |
What's all this talk about abortion, yes or no? The issue is that BOTH sides should be working toward a common goal of lowering abortion rates altogether. This means that the repubs should NOT be taking away money from family planning clinics and the like. It also means that birth control should be readily available be it condoms or the pill or the morning after pill. It means that there needs to be proper sex ed in the schools beyond abstinence only as the only choice. Repubs need to get off their prissy stance of "oh, sex shouldn't be discussed at all, oh my puritan ears" (unless it's about impeaching a dem pres or course, then they have no prob with discussing these details). That aside... Limiting education about ALL options and insisting on a "gag" rule creates the need for MORE abortions. Can't we just have an honest discussion about that point? Not to mention, haven't we all learned at this point that to prohibit something does not prevent it from happening anyway? Abortions will not stop if they are outlawed or if there is limited access to safe ones. SO, we can all band together on the need to lower the need to begin with. Repubs and Dems...please, unite. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 471 Registered: 10-2005 |
Crabby-I agree with you wholeheartedly BOTH sides need to be open and honest on the subject. But unfortunately they are not. I hear you on the Republican side but the pro-choice Dem/Liberal side needs to make sacrifies in their stance as well. Arguments that the "hands off my body" abortion on demand crowds are equally devisive and don't fly in my book. As I stated in earlier posts, the Republicans/cons awill always win the moral argument concerning abortion until the Dems break their silence and agree that everyone is shooting for the lowest rate possible. But we are jumping ahead a bit here. I want to continue analayzing RvW against the Constitution ... | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 4982 Registered: 10-1999  |
"As I stated in earlier posts, the Republicans/cons will always win the moral argument concerning abortion until the Dems break their silence and agree that everyone is shooting for the lowest rate possible."Let's see, what did the 2004 Democratic Party Platform say on this issue? "We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 473 Registered: 10-2005 |
Nohero- Coming out swinging in your typical cynnical fashion huh? Well, be forewarned, this board is in pursuit of an honest and OBJECTIVE discussion of the abortion issue so please don't ruin it. If I make an observation on Democrats that doesn't mean I am condemming them. It is just that, an observation. We are trying to avoid an "Us vs. Them" mentality and to cross lines to figure out this issue. Relax... And I am not saying anything that hasn't been said before. What you quoted from me was actually borrowed from an article in this past Sundays NYT editorail-written by a pro-choicer no less! Anon can vouch for this. Nohero, think about it. Who always brings up the moral issues concerning abortion-this is a no brainer. Everyone knows it is the right wing/con/repub camp. But that doesn't mean the Dems are immoral for their views and I am not promoting that idea either. But when you bring morality into play, no matter WHAT issue, it always seems to trumps whatever is in its way, including reality.... Besides bringing a campaign slogan into play is sort of cheesy... | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 561 Registered: 2-2004 |
Nohero, Unlike Scrotis, I am not looking for an honest debate. I gave up on that on this board a long time ago. Put to answer your softball question about the DNC platform, what did the American say about this platform with their vote? Do I really have to say it out loud? Keep in mind, I am pro-choice but like most other pro-choicers who put Bush in office, we realize where the Democratic Party really stands on this issue. Hey, I admit, the Repubs have a lot of mumbo jumbo in their platform as well that they don't adhere to, but this topic is about abortion and the Dems just are not seen as honest brokers on this subject. I don't especially want Roe overturned either, but I'm afraid the lefty wackos and the abortion on demand for 12 year olds crowd is going to push this issue into a terrible political corner one day. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3090 Registered: 3-2004 |
Oh, no, twelve-year-olds should definitely have the babies they get pregnant with!!! Yup, we need more thirteen-year-old mothers!! Especially because we want to punish those pesky, if correct, Democrats!!!  | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 447 Registered: 1-2004 |
poor southerner, all mixed up. | ||
| Nohero Supporter Username: Nohero Post Number: 4983 Registered: 10-1999 |
Mr. SLK – I wasn’t trying to be cynical (“typically” or otherwise). I was just responding to your point. You made the statement that the Democratic Party has to “break their silence and agree that everyone is shooting for the lowest rate possible”. I was just suggesting that this had already happened. Not everyone has noticed it (for whatever reason), but that does not mean that it hasn’t happened. I assume that you were referring to the article by William Saletan in the Sunday NYT. I think he downplayed what is actually said today in the abortion debate, to try to make his point. I also thought he went too far the other way, in the conclusion of his article, when he argued that the pro-choice war on the abortion rate must be “coupled with a political message that anyone who stands in the way, yammering about chastity or a ‘culture of life’, is not just anti-choice, but pro-abortion.” His prescription continues the name-calling and confrontation – but name-calling and confrontation don't lead to any resolution of the issue. They do benefit those with an interest in continuing to fight about this issue, however. As with any other issue, the point is to get beyond slogans. Sorry you thought the selection from the 2004 platform was “cheesy”, but it does accurately describe the same point of view you seem to be saying you espouse. As for Mr. Southerner – the whole “abortion on demand” or “lefty wackos” thing is a red herring. And I may be wrong, but there may be a lot of Bush voters who are going to be really shocked if Roe is overturned. For either of you, I’d recommend reading beyond the Roe decision, and reviewing the opinions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That case, decided nearly twenty years after Roe, better sets forth the current state of the law (as well as the arguments against Roe that you’ll be seeing in the next Supreme Court). There’s a classic Scalia dissent, where he carries on about “abortion on demand”. But, the state of the law is summarized in Justice O’Connor’s majority opinion, which discusses the balancing involved in the original Roe decision, and in subsequent jurisprudence - That should be the starting point of any discussion. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14473 Registered: 10-2001  |
Now that was a stellar post. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 914 Registered: 9-2004 |
SLK & crabby Its a damn shame that the RNC & DNC have used this issue in the way they have. IIRC we are talking about 500k abortions a year. It may be that a very high % of Americans are Anti Abortion - prochoice. | ||
| crabby Citizen Username: Crabbyappleton Post Number: 448 Registered: 1-2004 |
I don't know anyone who is for abortion; it is just realistic and important to keep it as a choice lest there be a run on coathangars.  | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 477 Registered: 10-2005 |
Thanks for all the input ladies and gentlemen, especailly NoHero-it looks like you have been doing your homework. I do hope to move on to Casey and the case that was decided just last week but if we want to know how we got somewhere we need to start in the beginning, hence RvW. Tulip-I know Southerner can have strong opinions but must you always be so ridiculously and melodramatically shrill in your responses? If we don't want twelve years old to be mothers why don't they just refrain from having sex, at least irresponsible sex? If you want abortions avaiable for 12 years old then I think it is just as reasonable for me to expect them to refrain from sex until they can handle it responsibly, no? And PLEASE leave "the I am right, you are wrong" attitude OUT of this board please? Anon and I were speaking about this topic on the "Smoking Ban" board when we brought it over to a new one. We are not trying to determine who is right or who is wrong, but just want to honestly analyze the abortion situation at hand. Thanks... | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 917 Registered: 9-2004 |
Southerner-- What would happen if the SC overturned RvW? Politically speaking? Think re-election. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 562 Registered: 2-2004 |
If the SC overturned Roe then I suspect it would become legal in most states. If certain states didn't want it to be legal then the state law would ban it and I guess we would have a run on coat hangers. I think this whole issue is overblown but since many of you zealots set your political watch by this issue then I'm sure your blood would be boiling. As for the political ramifications it would really hurt Republicans and you Dems would easily take back Congress (which is why it won't be overturned). Now for my opinion, I don't think there is any way the SC would overturn Roe. I think this is just the glamorous topic everyone likes to talk about. As a conservative I am definitely not enjoying seeing Alito on the Court for this issue. If women want to kill their own children then have at it. I look forward to all the other conservative rulings on issues that none of us even know will come before the court. While all of you libs are fretting over Roe, I think in the long run your real concern should lie in other areas where this conservative court will start bulldozing years of liberal rulings. No one other than the Pat Robertson's and lefty nuts will touch the abortion topic on the SC. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3091 Registered: 3-2004 |
SLK: Have to go to work, but...listen: Twelve year olds don't always decide when they get pregnant, and often don't understand the consequences. Don't blame them for "having sex." And you don't want me to point out when someone's statement is just plain ludicrous? Not going to happen. I find your argument to be a dangerous obfuscation of Roe Vs. Wade. I believe that what's behind the anti-abortion movement are men and women who want to encumber women with motherhood too early, so they won't be a threat in the job market. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 479 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tulip: I am listening but don't hear anything intelligble. You said: "And you don't want me to point out when someone's statement is just plain ludicrous?" Then you say: "I believe that what's behind the anti-abortion movement are men and women who want to encumber women with motherhood too early, so they won't be a threat in the job market." When should I start laughing over this ludicrous remark? I give you a gold star for effort for supplying a different perspective, but come on, do you really think it comes down to this...? "keeping the Female down?" Can it be that people have just have moral objections to abortion? Talk about being cynical.... And "I shouldn't blame 12 years old for having sex and getting pregnant?" Who should I blame then? When does personal responsibility ever come into play in the abortion issue? And why does it only come down to the woman's perspective when it comes to abortion? Wow....this thread is turning into exactly what I didn't want it to... | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 482 Registered: 10-2005 |
Good piece on the subject.... AT LAW A Waiting Period on Abortion If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. BY JAMES TARANTO Monday, January 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST The astonishing thing about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood--last week's case involving New Hampshire's Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act--is that it was for a unanimous court. This is the first time in the 33-year history of Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence that the court has decided a case by a 9-0 vote. That unanimity is the key to understanding Ayotte's significance, which is political more than legal. The court vacated a ruling of the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had overturned the statute on the ground that in some cases it imposed an "undue burden" on a girl seeking an abortion, which is unconstitutional under the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey precedent. The justices sent the case back to the lower court with the instruction that it issue "either an injunction prohibiting [only] unconstitutional applications or a holding that consistency with legislative intent requires invalidating the statute in toto." Whatever the First Circuit does, it is likely to be appealed, so the case stands a good chance of ending up before the high court again. If the court does rule on the statute again, it is sure to be divided. In the Casey case, Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed with the majority's rationale for upholding a parental consent statute. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer have indicated that their approach to the question is similar to Justice Stevens's. On the other side, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas argued in Casey that there is no constitutional protection for abortion. Under normal circumstances, all these justices probably would have filed or joined separate concurring or dissenting opinions in Ayotte expressing or reiterating their views. Instead, they silently joined Justice O'Connor's decision, which they were able to do because she stipulated at the outset that "we do not revisit our abortion precedents today." The justices agreed to disagree, and found common ground by reaching the narrowest possible conclusion. They also did it very quickly, deciding the case just seven weeks after it was argued, and in time to dispose of it--at least for now--before Samuel Alito takes his seat. Why would the court do this? Probably for institutional reasons--to insulate itself from politics. The court currently is in flux: It has a new chief justice; it is about to get a new associate justice; and another vacancy or two--with the attendant political battle--is a distinct possibility in the next few years. For the court's sake, it is better to leave any consideration or reconsideration of the constitutionality of abortion for a time of greater stability in the court's personnel. Consider what might have happened if the initial vote on whether to uphold the New Hampshire law was 5-4, with Justice O'Connor in the majority (on either side). If the court had dealt with the case at its usual pace, it would not have been decided before Judge Alito's confirmation, which means the case would be reheard, and Justice Alito would cast the deciding vote. That in itself is unproblematic, but in the normal course of things, Justices Scalia and Thomas would write separate opinions, either concurrences or dissents, restating their view that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Suppose further that Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas. Then there would be four justices on record for overturning Roe. This would drastically raise the stakes if Justice Stevens or Justice Ginsburg were to retire. There has never been a Supreme Court vacancy at a time when the court was split 4-4 between justices on record supporting Roe and those favoring its invalidation--though there was reason to suspect the court was evenly divided in 1987, when President Reagan unsuccessfully nominated Robert Bork. Justice Scalia had not yet taken a position, but his views were easy to guess. Justice O'Connor, although she had refrained from either endorsing or opposing Roe explicitly, had voted with dissenters William Rehnquist and Byron White in cases involving abortion regulation and thus was easily mistaken for a Roe foe. Considering the ugliness of the Bork battle and the bitterness that lingers nearly two decades later, the court did itself and the country a service by avoiding this divisive matter for now. In addition, if one assumes that both Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Alito are inclined to overturn Roe, there are good strategic reasons why both anti- and pro-Roe justices would not want them to say so immediately. The anti-Roe side does not have enough votes to prevail, even with the new justices; whereas the pro-Roe side may hold out hope of persuading one or both of them, which would be much harder to do once they have gone on the record. Only Chief Justice Warren Burger has ever switched sides on Roe after publicly taking a position, and he retired less than two months later. Ayotte is reminiscent of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the first 2000 election case, in which the justices unanimously vacated a ruling of the Florida Supreme Court that was designed to manufacture votes for Al Gore, and instructed the state court to find an equitable solution to the election dispute. Everyone remembers what happened eight days later, when a sharply divided Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, effectively decided the election in George W. Bush's favor. The court paid an institutional price for doing so. But in Bush v. Palm Beach, the justices were united in an attempt to avoid this eventuality by giving Florida's high court a chance to resolve the matter. Unlike in the election cases, the Supreme Court is not racing the clock to resolve the abortion question. Most likely, sometime in the next decade the court will either overturn or reaffirm Roe. If President Bush gets to replace another pro-Roe justice or two, or a Republican is elected president in 2008, Roe will probably be history. Otherwise, it will be with us for another generation. In either case, politics will determine the outcome of what should have been a political matter all along, but the political battles over the next court appointees may be less bloody than if Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito took a position now. As a matter of law, Ayotte itself is no more than a historical footnote. But if it helps to bring about a civilized resolution of an issue that has roiled American politics for decades, it will deserve to be remembered as a great act of judicial statesmanship. Mr. Taranto is editor of OpinionJournal.com. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4394 Registered: 5-2001  |
Scro- please, if you are going to scold tulip, then scold southerner who started to get your even-handed discussion out of control in the first place with this doozy, "I'm afraid the lefty wackos and the abortion on demand for 12 year olds crowd is going to push this issue." Also, why are you blaming the 12 year old? No discussion of who her partner was? There are SOOOO many scenarios in a case like this, that to generalize is unfair to a reasoned and balanced discussion. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4395 Registered: 5-2001 |
southerner- your line "If women want to kill their own children then have at it." is exactly the kind of remark that obfuscates the underlying problem. We all need to come together at the point BEFORE anyone engages in sex. Then, we must all come to grips with the fact that, yes, people have sex! Shocking! Can you believe it? Then, we all have to make sure that proper education is available to all about all precautions. The Reupublicans seem to want to gloss over this point so much so that they don't want to even admit that contraception is an option! It is truly mind-boggling that their only message is abstinence. And because of this, they are taking away funding in women's health clinics (in US and all over the world, specifically refuge areas) if they even mention the word abortion. That results in no proper healthcare at all in places that need it most. That is what is truly appalling. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 483 Registered: 10-2005 |
ffof- It takes two to tango the last time I checked so our course I am holding both parties responsible. But to totally victimize the female and villanize the male is totally unfair. When are the father's rights going to gain any substance in the abortion issue...? What, do you want me to scold Southerner for, his deliverance? His take that you quoted is much closer to reality than Tulip's who found some type of conspiracy theory to harm all women. And please stop making it a Dem/Repub thing, ok? I can easily point out that id Dem's mantra is to make abortion "legal, safe and rare" they sure aren't ahowing it....but I won't... | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 781 Registered: 12-2003 |
It takes two to tango the last time I checked so our course I am holding both parties responsible. I'm sure there are plenty of rape and incest victims that would be thrilled to hear you say that. I can easily point out that id Dem's mantra is to make abortion "legal, safe and rare" they sure aren't ahowing it.... Wrong. Democrats are in favor of things like common-sense sex education, and easy availability of birth control. They aren't deluded, like Republicans who believe that plugging their ears and repeating "Just say no" will solve the world's ills. When the right wing snaps out of their denial, maybe we can have a reasoned debate on this issue. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 755 Registered: 10-2004  |
Scrotis, You claim to want this to be a discussion then you belittle the very ideas you are requesting. During the Clinton administration, sexual education was a funded initiative, planned parenthood centers were funded, contraception and education was seen as key elements in the drive to prevent abortions and abortions were steadily on the decline. I think that shows that the "mantra" was real. If abortion is to be made indeed "rare" then that would mean real and open discussions with teenagers about sex and contraception. I notice that you have not taken a stand on sexual education and you have not taken a stand on contraception. What is your position on these two inhibiters of the need for abortion and what is your opinion of the republican platform that proposes that abstinence education is the best way to eliminate unwanted teen pregnancy? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10389 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think sex education enters into this discussion. Many of the most vocal critics of abortion also are against sex education in the schools or support abstinance only sex education. A year or so ago Texas decided to change a very succesful sex education program, that had a large abstinance component, to an abstinance only program. Presumably under the theroy that if a little abstinance was good, total abstinance was better. Oddly, among the critics was the Southern Baptist youth pastor for the state. Teenage pregnancies and abortions were way down the state at the time. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 484 Registered: 10-2005 |
Madden- Pardon me for my momentary spurt of belligerence but why do Pro-choicers always do that(throw the "rape/incest" argument in without fully knowing my position like their on cue or something)? I am talking about 12 year olds engaging in sex not rape or incest victims. In my opinion, if latter wish to have abortion then by all means they should. I am all for sex education, but also can understand if the parent's don't like the idea of their schools teaching their kids such a subject. Parents need to get over it and teach their kids the birds and the bees as well. I think there are alot Republicans in denial, but I think Democrats can be unrealistic as well. I really think the latter tend to overlook keeping abortion "rare" and that is why the Republicans always win on the morality issues involving abortion. And I am not going to totally knock abstinence because it isnt that bad of a notion and can be part of the solution (along with many other factors). I was surprised to personally come across many teenagers in my life who are taking this route by their own free will. How can you knock that (not saying that any of you are)? But I would like to continue analyzing Roe v. Wade and other SC cases to see how we got where we are on this subject... I am not looking for a fight, only an honest discussion, so put your swords away. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4396 Registered: 5-2001 |
Scro- "I really think the [Democrats] tend to overlook keeping abortion "rare" " That's where you are wrong. It's the Repubs that have pulled funding from family planning clinics and women's health organizations world wide. This funding would go toward education of birth control options and basic women's healthcare. Without this education, you can't get to the point of "rare". The Repubs have totally road-blocked the steps needed to start the trend to "rare". The abortion rate was going down during Clinton because the funding was there, Bush has pulled the rug, and that has fueled the flames. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 759 Registered: 10-2004 |
Scrotis - why are you continuing to use 12 year old pregnancy in your abortion example? Surely this is one of the most infrequent ages for abortion. I would think that the vast majority of teenage abortion would occur in the high school years. If you want to discuss abortion honestly, then why pull this out as an example? | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 488 Registered: 10-2005 |
Hoops-I am just using an example that Southerner dished out, what does it matter....geez... Fine, we have now officially changed from a 12 year old girl to a 17 year old girl so Hoops is happy. Is the reality of of a 12 year old getting an abortion jolt you Hoops? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 762 Registered: 10-2004 |
I find the reality of an abortion not being available to a 12 year old girl who through either ignorance, experimentation, or force has become pregnant to be an absolute nightmare for that girl and her family. I think that the jolt is that the 12 year old in your example is pregnant at all. That is a crime. The abortion in this case is a resolution. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 783 Registered: 12-2003 |
Pardon me for my momentary spurt of belligerence but why do Pro-choicers always do that(throw the "rape/incest" argument in without fully knowing my position like their on cue or something)? Because it's an important distinction, and this is more than just an argument for argument's sake. Nobody thinks pro-lifers don't care about rape or incest, but there is a basic logical flaw in the argument. If all life is precious, then surely the child of rape is precious, too. If abortion is okay sometimes, then it's not really about protecting every unborn child, it's about passing legislation to impose your morality on others, and that's just plain un-American...or at least it used to be. Hoops also brings up an important point...abortions steadily declined all through the Clinton years, yet you're not buying that Democrats want abortions to be rare. Can you reconcile your opinion with the facts? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 564 Registered: 2-2004 |
What a neat and new topic! Not. Listen, Roe is not going to be overturned so what is all the hand wringing about. The Dems brought this up as a scare tactic against Alito. Once he gets confirmed this topic will be dropped and the normal nuts on both sides can assume their typically dreary positions. I do think years of liberal rulings will be chipped away by this conservative court but these guys are way to smart to mess with Roe. Will it be used as political fodder? Absolutely, it has been for years and will continue to be. Just like the death penalty will be and the latest addition to the political/judicial scene - eminent domain. Let's see which party can frame the arguments best. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4259 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well if you're correct that means that Scalia and Thomas will all of a sudden "get religion" over stare decisis because otherwise they've got the votes to overrule all or part of it. Certainly if they do it's going to be the beginning of the end for GOP control as legislatures in blue states enact abortion bans, and moderates see what's really going on and vote their states into the red column. A few votes in Ohio and a few in Florida is all it would take, but there are other close states too that will swing. But again, stipulating for argument's sake that you're right, it will be highly entertaining to see the intellectual gymnastics they'll go through. | ||
| Grrrrrrrrrrr Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 208 Registered: 11-2002 |
Does Tulip actually have any ties to M/SO? Or are we just extremely lucky that she has chosen us to share all the way from Lambertville or wherever her neo-lib agenda? |
