| Author | Message | ||
     Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 784 Registered: 12-2003 |
Let's see which party can frame the arguments best. Instead of that, why not forget the framing? How about each party just come out and say whether they think RvW should be thrown out, and see which one most closely represents the will of the people? "Only 25 percent of those polled said they believe the precedent should be overturned, while 66 percent said they believe Roe should stand." http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/alito/index.html | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 490 Registered: 10-2005 |
Southerner- I was trying to do some different. Anon and I sought to constitutionally analyze the SC decisions re: abortion starting with RvW. But you can see what it turned into. Surprised? Madden-my home work tells me annual US abortion rates are still declining 0r flat since 2000 (1.2/1.3m), so what is your point? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 566 Registered: 2-2004 |
tom, I agree with you about Scalia and Thomas, but remember, everyone acts differently when they are in the minority. You basically feel you have the right to harangue against everyone and everything. Just like the Dems have been doing since 2000. Yet, the minute they become the majority they will turn from rapid pit bull to moderate compassionate liberal overnight. It's the nature of politics. When out of power you have nothing to lose. Once the conservatives have the majority on the court, they will have to turn down the rhetoric and act like the majority. I'm sure they will realize they have a great opportunity to undo a ton of liberal case law rather than tackle one specific topic that will run the Repubs out of office. And if they do overturn Roe then it will get really interesting. I see a landscape of states each with their own set of laws and rules which I don't think is such a bad thing. Put it this way, I have no problem with Roe being overturned. Although, I'm pro-choice, I'm also pro-states rights. If the people of a state want abortion illegal then so be it. It just means people would have to travel another state to have an abortion. It's no different than any number of issues. | ||
| Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 785 Registered: 12-2003 |
Madden-my home work tells me annual US abortion rates are still declining 0r flat since 2000 (1.2/1.3m), so what is your point? My point is that your claim that Democrats don't want to reduce abortion is a load of crap. Do you understand why the performance of the Bush administration is not relevant to this element of the debate? Also, please cite the source of this alleged homework. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 567 Registered: 2-2004 |
Madden, Good question and you make a great political point. Listen, most of us political junkies know why the Repubs straddle the fence. The majority of the voting populace wants Roe to be left alone. Therefore, the Repubs are forced to play dodgeball on this issue. It's similar to the death penalty debate. All of us political junkies know the Dems would love to ban it, but they will never admit it out loud. It's called politics. I wish politicians would heed your advice and actually give truthful answers but the guys who actually say what they believe are scorched in political circles and become pariahs. It comes back to what me and Reingold always discuss, a politician may be 100% correct on an issue, but if he gets voted out of office then it doesn't matter how right he/she is. You have to be in the game to make a difference and the Repubs know this which is why they get that cold stare when asked about abortion. They know it's a losing issue on the whole, while also bringing in nice amounts of cash from the far right. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 763 Registered: 10-2004  |
"all of us political junkies know the Dems would love to ban it" I dont think so. Most Americans would like to see RvW continue to be the law. However there are a great number that want to see it banned. Most of that number, IMHO, come from the religious right and also IMHO, abortion is the only thing that keeps the religious right together. So really you may be entirely correct in saying that if the decision is reversed, that it would upset the whole applecart. I am certain that there are many dems that are not in favor of abortion but I am also just as certain that the vast majority of dems are pro-choice. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 491 Registered: 10-2005 |
Madden, Please note, there are some of us that do want RvW reversed but that doesn't mean we want abortion abolished.... | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 492 Registered: 10-2005 |
Madden- Maybe you are misintepreting what I am try to say. I am not saying the Dems are not trying to reduce abortion rates. But if they are they are pretty silent about it. Its should be everyone's goal to minimize the # of abortions in this country. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 1037 Registered: 5-2003 |
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, you will not see the number of abortions in this country reduced. What you will see is a huge jump in women--and young girls--dying because they will be forced to seek clandestine abortions in unsafe and unsterile circumstances. You will also see an increase in travel out of the country by women who are wealthy enough to afford to seek abortions elsewhere. And maybe you'll also see even more unwanted children beaten and brutalized and killed by people who were forced to give birth to them. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 495 Registered: 10-2005 |
Lizziecat, No, if RvW is overturned, abortion would go back to the 50 states where it belongs. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 569 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, I was talking about the death penalty. I know Dems don't want to ban abortion. Lizzie, There will also be a lot of frustrated teenage boys who won't be getting any nookie on a regular basis if these girls don't want any of your options. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 1611 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since abortion has been legal, has there been any downside besides the objection to abortion itself? Women don't die anymore because of dirty illegal abortions, the crime rate decreased (according the the book "Blink"), and I'm sure millions of adults and children were spared a life of poverty and struggle because of an unexpected and unwanted child. Lizziecat - Well said. Southerner - You're just gross. Teenage boys and girls have been getting nookie since there was nookie to be had. Once upon a time when a girl found herself "in trouble" she had 3 options - a risky abortion, a "vacation" at a home for unwed mothers, or a shot-gun wedding. A lot of downside for the women, not much for the man. | ||
| campbell29 Citizen Username: Campbell29 Post Number: 333 Registered: 4-2002 |
Not to mention that most likely any law banning abortion will include provision for rape and incest. Who's going to be in charge of checking out the multitude of stories by women who come into doctors offices saying things like "Well, it was Thanksgiving, the wine was flowing, my brother started looking pretty good, and yada,yada,yada, I find mysellf in a bit of a pickle"? I assume there's not much chance that doctors will be forced to verify conception "stories" prior to terminating the pregnancy (or will this task fall upon the already overburdened judiciary?) Or I guess we could just go completely medieval and decide that a woman's testimony needed to be supported by a male in order to be legal. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 572 Registered: 2-2004 |
Lydia, You think nookie is gross? Maybe you need some ....., forget it. Roe won't be overturned so all of you can put the boogey man back in the closet (I love how the Repubs are just wasting time. Keeping the Dems distracted and soon it will be November and the Dems will realize they wasted a great opportunity to advance their causes rather than waste on non-issues). | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 499 Registered: 10-2005 |
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. And I disagree with your praise for Lizziecat, she just sounds like she is melodramatically rehasing something she read off of Moveon.org. She is apparently isn't aware of the results should RvW be overturned. Campbell29-I think we had this conversation before. In order to reach a level where BOTH sides of the abortion debate are treated fairly then they both have to make sacrifices. What you are implying is "abortion on demand" which is totally extreme as well. I have a novel idea, if the chick doesn't want to get "caught in a pickle" with her winedrunk brother maybe they should do something miraculous like refrain fron f**king each other....? | ||
| CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 562 Registered: 6-2003 |
"Or I guess we could just go completely medieval and decide that a woman's testimony needed to be supported by a male in order to be legal" Ah..campbell29...did you miss Alito's sole dissent ruling that a woman had to notify her husband before seeking an abortion???? | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1739 Registered: 8-2002 |
Anyone read Freakonomics? If he is right, then outlawing abortion will ultimately increase poverty and crime... (of course, that's no reason to defend the right to abortion, but I doubt that the right wing anti abortion forces will put their money where their mouths are to prevent it from happening) /p | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3099 Registered: 3-2004 |
How wouldn't it increase poverty and crime? Have you ever worked with unwed teen mothers? Their children often have absent fathers, the girls are poor, the children will grow with one parent and no regular household, no discipline or attention. This is not a classist statement, it's the truth. The situation makes for lost children, latchkey children, who grow into undereducated adults, prone to violence and crime. If someone is poor and has a child, they should keep the child, if there is at least one caring, loving parent, or better yet two parents who love the child. It doesn't matter what the gender of the parent or parents. Without these conditions, we are fostering social problems of great magnitude. I am not advocating the mass murder of poor children. I am saying that accidental or pardon the expression, unwanted pregnancies, do not help our civilization in any way. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 575 Registered: 2-2004 |
tulip, I'm glad to see your firmly in the death penalty camp. I agree with you. Unwanted and worthless people should be killed. It makes for a much safer society for those of us who are wanted and worthy. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3101 Registered: 3-2004 |
If you are so pro-life, where's your concern for those killed in capital punishment? You are the hypocrite. But you are so distasteful, and rude, and narrow-minded, I will not discuss this with you further. Congratulations, you have won a battle. Mind, you will not win the war. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3102 Registered: 3-2004 |
I don't think of a fetus as a person, fella. That's where you and I part company. Did I pass out six thousand people every time I ovulated in my life? I think not, dude. Oh, excuse me, they weren't fertilized. They were still...rather small. Anyway, you and your friends can have the last word. Arguing with a someone like you, and them, is truly exhausting. I have to keep my strength up for working with unwed mothers and other troubled teens. Nighty-night. Hope you can help someday. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 578 Registered: 2-2004 |
tulip, Do you even read threads or do you just post to post. I have stated multiple times in this thread alone that I am pro-choice. If you want women to have the right to kill their children then we're on the same page. So do I. And I also believe there is a segment of our population that should be killed post birth after society actually gets to know them. And I really hope you aren't suggesting that you passed six thousand fetus's over your lifetime. If so, congratulations and give the man a medal. We are on the same side so I will win the war to. Whom we are fighting is unknown to me however. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3103 Registered: 3-2004 |
Ooooo...Kay. You're pro-choice, and women kill their children. WTF are you talking about. Talk about posting to post. You are a master of paradox. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3104 Registered: 3-2004 |
Just go to bed. Do you go to bed? Or do you sleep posting at the message board? | ||
| algebra2 Supporter Username: Algebra2 Post Number: 3953 Registered: 5-2001  |
boring | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 500 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tulip- Declaring your opinions law again I see? Well, OTHERS don't necessairly hold your view that "it is only a fetus." and that women are indeed killing their children. It is funny how different opinions work that way.... Do yu want a paradox? Those who state a fetus isn't a person but in same breath saying that no one is "pro-abortion." What difference does it make? You accuse Southerner of being "distasteful, and rude, and narrow-minded." So what does that make you? And what did you mean by this? "I have to keep my strength up for working with unwed mothers and other troubled teens." Are you in social work now? I said it before and I said it again, I am having a difficult time accepting your education level and age by your posts....with both comes wisdom....it seems all you do is regurgitate what you read on your left wing websites...way to challenge yourself... -SLK PS...how is that website/board coming along? | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3105 Registered: 3-2004 |
SLK: Yes, as I am off today, I will play...for a while. 1) I do not read left-wing websites. I read the paper, and I do work with unwed mothers, and many other children. I told you, I am in education. 2) My work activities relate directly to the problems of the undereducated in America. I see the problems and difficulties people have first hand, in fact, I help analyze these problems. That's all I'll say, because you have been so full of bile against me I don't dare tell you any more about myself. 3) I am "pro-abortion." I am not "pro-teen-promiscuity." I am also "pro-sex-education," pro-family planning, "pro-general education," pro-health coverage" and "pro" all the social programs that worked in the last administration to lower abortion rates. Knowledge is power, slk. 4) Every claim I have made about myself is true. 5) I don't think I am narrow-minded. For example, I believed in entitlements without qualification. Now I believe in the self-help programs such as those promoted during Clinton Administration. 6) I am not interested in seeing twelve=year olds carry babies to term. It's a terrible idea, no matter how they got there. 7) Obviously, if you are going to say that a microscopic organism deserves a life chance, you have to say that someone on death row deserves a life chance, but you don't. Clear inconsistency, if not hypocrisy. If, however, you were to try to trade one for the other, it would be no dice in my book. 8) A few threads back you criticized me for not stating my opinions. I can't make you happy, can I? You are one of those people I will have to write off. I still intend to post my opinions, whether you badger me or not. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 503 Registered: 10-2005 |
Tulip- I beat you up not on your beliefs but with your arrogant and condescending presentation. Your tendacy to pigenhole and ostracize other posters with different opinions is clearly evident and leaves alot to be desired. It also slights any education you have acquired over the years-suit yourself.. When did I ever give you my opinion on the death penalty? I didn't, you just assume my postion because they do not match yours. I never criticized you for nto stating your opinions, it is the other way around. So, how is that board coming? | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 579 Registered: 2-2004 |
tulip, I hear you. And my position is consistent. I am pro-choice and pro-death penalty. So I am consistent, according to you. While being pro-choice that doesn't mean I like abortion. It's a necessary medical procedure which I am against outlawing. However, it is still killing an unborn child no matter what avenues you use to displace the guilt. And I don't take offense to this on a religious basis. If a parent makes a decision to kill his/her own child then go ahead since it's the law of our land. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3106 Registered: 3-2004 |
You tell me to get off the Maplewood message board, and say I am arrogant. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 766 Registered: 10-2004 |
tulip - keep up the good fight. Slick is just trying to goad you with his psychological claptrap. For an educated person he actually has very little faith in actual science so he plays his word games to get a rise out of you. I agree with your positions and think they are the humane and sensible ones. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3107 Registered: 3-2004 |
Thanks, Hoops. You are a real pal. It's nice to know I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness, so to speak. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10401 Registered: 5-2001 |
The bottomline here is that no pro choice person wants to force anyone to have an abortion. Unfortunately, most pro lifers want to stop everyone from having an abortion based on what is 90% plus of the time their religious believes. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 504 Registered: 10-2005 |
Bob K, the bottom line is much more than that I am afraid. Abortion is not like a McDonald's drive thru though some like to treat it that way. Hoops-maybe you and Tulip should go out and get a beer? One thing I can depend on you for is no surprises. Your postions are very easy to guess...too bad you weren't the lottery...and what do mean by word play and no faith in science? Was that directed towards me or Southerner? can you give me an example of this word play? And just because I donj't agree with your "science" doesn't mean I do not have faith in science. Tulip-I am not asking you to get off the board, you had very unkind words for Maplewoodians/South Orangians on another thread so I suggested you start your own board...big difference... | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 581 Registered: 2-2004 |
Bob, I hear what your laying down and it is no doubt true to a point. But a lot of pro-lifers believe abortion should be outlawed because they are looking to protect an unborn child who can't protect itself. That has nothing to do with religion. I'm sure you would jump at the ready to protect a new born week old defenseless child. What's the difference if you back it up a month or two? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10406 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner, good point. However, I think the prevaling scientific view (for whatever good that is and possibly biased as well) is that life doesn't begin until a fetus is viable outside the womb. SLK, the "McDonald's" analogy is as silly as the "rape" analogy elsewhere in this thread. | ||
| campbell29 Citizen Username: Campbell29 Post Number: 336 Registered: 4-2002 |
I think alot of pro-lifers would improve their cause by avidly supporting ways to avoid conception rather than jumping in after the fact. This country has a real puritanical streak when it comes to discussing sex and birth control, but lets all face reality and acknowledge that people are going to have sex and that those who are not willing to be parents should have wide access to contraception. If we as a society have decided that abortion is a bad thing - we should make sure that people have not only information about birth control, but that the many forms of birth control are easy to obtain, inexpensive and its use is encouraged. Currently we have an administration that will not approve an emergency contraceptive pill (Plan B) because the extreme right wing has their panties in knot over it. This doesn't seem like the actions of a government that really wants to stop abortions, but rather pacify a bunch of reactionaries who believe that if you tell people not to have sex, that should be birth control enough. I think most of the pro-life people do look it from a religious perspective. They seem to be invoking God and the bible in their arguments. I don't believe I've ever heard of any militant pro-life atheist/agnostics. The pro-lifers seem to be predominantly conservative christians. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10408 Registered: 5-2001 |
Unfortunately many of the pro-life people also don't condone sex outside of marriage and some don't condone use of birth control as well. | ||
| campbell29 Citizen Username: Campbell29 Post Number: 337 Registered: 4-2002 |
Then in my mind its pretty hard to find much logic in any of their positions. I would imagine married people are the largest market for contraception, just based on the fact that most adults are either married, or have been so. Also, I'm sure married women get abortions too. Listening to those who stick their heads in the sand regarding human sexuality does not bode well for good public health policy. | ||
| Scrotis Lo Knows Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 508 Registered: 10-2005 |
Everyone- I agree with most of what being said, but can we take this beyond the pro-choice/pro-life positions? What do we do with someone like me in the middle who can understand most of both side's arguments? How can we reach a mutual agreement between both sides where most will be satisfied? One solution would be to analyze RvW and other consequential SC cases and really determine if their is a consitutional right to abortion and take it from there. We can review the constitutionality of abortion. We can determien if the decision was fair or an overreach of the judicial branch....you knwo, stuff like that.... What do you say? |
