Another reason for removing the Bush administration.

There was a rally in LA today.  I liked the "Keep Bush out of my bush" sign...

If you like abortion so much, why don't you have the intellectual honesty to amend the Constitution, rather than demanding that unelected judges read something into it that simply is not there?  Might it be because you recognize that yours is a minority position?

I'd have a lot more respect for the pro-abortion crowd if they'd demonstrate the intellectual honesty encouraged above.

-- Modified on 4/27/2004 11:27:08 AM

The supreme court has "read something" into the constitution,
as you put it, plenty of times.  That's their job - to interpret
the constitution.

There are also plenty of major decision - that affect everyone -
that are not written explicitly in the constitution.  That's
because the constitution is only the starting point of 200+
years of court decisions that shape the legal landscape of
this country.  In short, the "constitution" is a document that
is static but who's interpretation changes over time.

Those unelected judges are appointed by the president and
approved by the Senate.  The process is the same for ALL
presidents.  And, if I'm not mistaken, that process is written
into the constitution.  Talk about intellectual honestly -
sheesh.

Also, cite your source of claiming that being for allowing
abortion is a minority opinion.  If it were such a minority
opinion, the battle wouldn't be around for long.  My educated
guess is that the issue is pretty much split down the middle.

fr

dude-

Why go crazy over a medical procedure that is already legal?  It ought to be a no -brainer.  If a woman wants to get her uterus cleaned out of anything- she ought to do it.  If she doesn't it ought not to occur.

If you don't like abortions- don't get one.

The judges in Roe V. Wade just pointed that out...

The lack of harm to thers is palpable here. Only extra babies are problems- never abortions. They solve problems.

It's sort of like outlawing brake jobs or something.  Taking a universal good (that abortions are among family options) and making it a crime

Americans are universally seen as none too bright- this eternal argument in our country proves it!

Name a world problem that is not ameliorated by controlling poulation?

Thank you J86- that ought to shut you up for the rest of time-

... unless we have to.  (I don't care what it may be for).  The pro-life faction generally agrees they can't get a law restricting abortion in the US and is attempting incremental changes.  This is a non-issue.  

I was sexually active when abortion was illegal.  If the women in this country are so fucking stupid that they let the religious right make decisions about this for them, then they deserve what they get.  I, for one, don't think that they are.

I would personally be much more sympethetic if the people so concerned for the "ujnborn" agreed to pledge all their assets to take care of unwanted children in the US.  Do you want to pony up your hobbying funds and a spare bedroom to take care on an unwanted child James?  I adopted two of them -- I've done my part.

 

-- Modified on 4/26/2004 4:02:20 PM

, say, a month of conception.  James86, would you then be in favor of abortion ?

sdstud: I'm impressed by your knowledge of constitutional history, which seems comparable to your knowledge generally.  Presumably you would have given the same stirring defense to Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford (blacks are not human, and therefore can be held in bondage as property), and the majority in Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal).  Otherwise, you must concede that the Supreme Court errs.

Frankie2003a: I didn't assert that being pro-abortion is a majority position, though the laws of fifty states struck down in Roe suggests that pro-life is a majority position.  However, I merely raise the question because their fear of democratic majorities indicates that the pro-abortionists fear that theirs is a minority position.

Sully: You should know by now that nothing shuts me up, though I didn't raise this issue here.  I repeat, if you're so sure of the popularity of your position, put it to the will of the majority, rather than in the hands of unelected judges.  If even some prominent pro-abortionists can concede that the issue of abortion at least raises the question of life, why can't you?  Besides, there's plenty of data out there demonstrating the ravages that having an abortion can cause (an actress (first name Jennifer) was recently on Hannity and Colmes discussing her biography, which discusses her experience) on the victim who survives.

HarryLime: As a Conservative and a constitutionalist, I generally agree with the proposition that we shouldn't mess with the Constitution.  The problem is that the far Left doesn't extend to me (or the Constitution) the same courtesy and respect.  I respect your adoption of two unwanted children.  But technology has progressed sufficiently in this country that abortion shouldn't even be necessary as a method of birth control.  And except for rape and incest (hard cases that shouldn't control the question), the time to exercise "choice" is when one engages in the activity that provokes the "need" for an abortion.  As for caring for children, I already care for mine.  And with my taxes, for about three or four others, too, as well as their parents.  And with my charitable contributions, a few others, too.  So please spare the sanctimony for someone who: (1) cares; (2) is impressed; and (3) respects the constitutional limitations which make public welfare programs every bit as unconstitutional as a Supreme Court which declares void the abortion laws of fifty states.  The appropriate role of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, not to provide a cradle-to-grave recliner for the irresponsible.

llcar: Nice try, but I support abortion only in the practice of traditional self-defense: to save the life of the mother.  None of this "health" or "psychological well-being" horseshit, either.  Besides, homosexuality --- like all sexual behavior --- is a choice, not genetic.

StartThinking: Yes, I oppose it, because I believe that life begins at conception.  But I am more offended by a Supreme Court which takes the decision out of the hands of the States than I am by a State which chooses to allow a liberal abortion regime.  Hence, the nuance of my position is best illustrated by this: my ideal candidate for the State legislature is one who opposes abortion; for federal office, I would prefer candidate who would not federalize the question in any way (though to the extent that the Federal government funds medical care, I support the Hyde Amendment preventing the use of federal funds for abortion); for President, I would prefer a candidate whose litmus test on abortion --- and please don't waste our time by suggesting that only Republican have one --- is that Roe v. Wade is a constitutional monstrosity that should be reversed.  I would oppose a presidential candidate who would appoint judges who believe, and would rule, that abortion should be allowed only in the circumstances where I believe it should be allowed.

InterestingWoman: So now it's acceptable to wish that another poster were dead?  Since we're all whores or whoremongers here, I suppose that pretensions to civility are just that: pretensions.

And here's an interesting thought.  A few of you have trotted out the old "Gee, you should support 'em" argument.  How about this one: since you declare that women should always have the choice whether to abort, your clear implication is that there are occasions when it is an appropriate choice.  Therefore, it necessarily follows that you believe that the consequences of your choice shouldn't be visited upon others.  Since that is so, I presume that you would allow fathers of unwanted children to not be burdened by the consequence of a woman who exercised her choice to bear his child (no child support requirements for fathers declaring their desire for the woman's abortion), and that you would cut off public welfare to women and families bearing children that they cannot financially support themselves.

Or is it merely the far Left agenda of license and socialism that you support?

You stated: "However, to even argue in favor of taking the right to chose away from women and allowing innocent children to wind up in foster care or worse and to allow the population to burgeon beyond  its' already burdensome rate, is just unthinkable!"

Setting aside the argument of whether abortion should be legal, are you saying that you believe it's preferable to snuff out the life of the fetus, than allow a child to be born and possibly end up in foster care? If that is the case, then why not advocate birth control, rather than abortion.

RLTW

Obviously, they are not infallible:  See Bush v. Gore in 2000.

I also find if ironic that you bring up Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott v. Sanford, two cases in which you OBVIOUSLY, based on your widely held and stated views about judicial activism, would have supported the Court's findings at the time, only you won't admit to that today, because they are so universally disgraced as decisions.

Because, in fact, Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sanford were BOTH decided based on a static interpretation of the Constitution, while the their overturning required the dreaded "Judicial Activism" that you have CONSISTENTLY decried.  But in fact, Both of THOSE cases are noteworthy because they are situations where a conservative Court found a legalistic and in literal rationale for institutionalizing a clear social injustice, and it later took an activist Court to find a broader interpretation to overthrow them and thus legalize what most people in society had come to believe was a moral and just societal goal (i.e. equality among the races).

The simple fact is, Roe v. Wade is properly held, because to oppose it requires the adoption of a religious dogma (i.e. life begins at conception) that is NOT found anywhere in the Constitution, NOR is it a universally held societal more.  In fact, many folks believe that life begins at birth, or that life begins at the time of fetal viability, or at some other point where the brain begins carrying out it's higher level funcitions.
And as long as THAT deep philosophical question is NOT answered in UNIVERSALLY the same way, across the range of religious views, then it cannot be the underpinning of a competing interest for the state to protect life, which would outweigh the interest of the mother to control her own body, which the fetus is unambiguously dependent upon to achieve viable life.  Legally, the state has a compelling interest in preserving life.  However YOU have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to impose your viewpoint of what LIFE is.  Legally speaking, a fetus that is not yet at the point of viability, is NOT life.  Hence, legally speaking, the state has no compelling interest in protecting it.  YOU may well belive that it's life.  And as such, I would advise you never to act against your own beliefs by having an abortion yourself.  But you have NO right to inflict that religious viewpoint on anyone else.

It is a pile of cells, and it is only by spending enough time in the mother's uterus to LIVE, that it becomes life.  I see no reason that a fetus has any more right to life than my sperm does.  

Once it is brought to term, in a woman's body, and BECOMES viable life, then it has rights.  But the WOMAN has the right to control that body, and choose whether to devote it to nurturing that fetus INTO a life, over the term of her pregnancy.  But your belief that a fetus is "life" is just that, a BELIEF.  And you have no legal right to impose that belief on me.

And I DO advocate birth control.  Abortion is what we need when Birth Control fails, be that form of Birth control abstinence that fails, or condoms that fail, or IUDs that fail, or taking the Pill that fails.  And Foster Care is what we need when unwanted fetuses become babies.

think that women who have abortions are making that decision casually.  In reality, they are taking responsibility for a very difficult decision.