overturned after Bush is through appointing Supreme Court justices?
because they will not travel to states where it is legal to get the abortion done.
Actually, the above is just the first reason, but it's a good starting point.
I"m just responding to your arguement.
I honestly think that i fall in with most of the usa when i say i believe in abortion for rape and incest. I dont think its a great idea for it to be used as reverse birth control. I have changed my position on this with time. When i was younger i saw no problem with abortion for any reason, but after 2 kids I would like to think that we all can be responsible, I know its not going to happen... just dont like the idea of late term abortions. A morning after pill ok.
I know people on both sides of this issue and its going to be tough to find a middle ground. Im hoping science will save the day. There's enough bull on both sides.
Abortion on demend for girls 15 with no parental notice, wrong idea.
Not addressing the consequences of not allowing abortion or birth control, wrong idea.
As far as women dying from illegal abortions thats something that pro choice groups could address with bus trips or other travel to states that allow it. Let them pick up the check.
I think that it should be decided in a state forum. You may not like it but many, and its not just republicans, dont support abortion.
will die in illegal abortions. I understand that you feel that these girls deserve to die because that is the consequence of the decisions they have made, but I disagree.
Its illegal to drive while intoxicated, but it still happens.
People get killed and kill others while acting illegally. It is a result of failing to exercise personal control and good judgement. But your solution is then..... do away with the law?
Not accept the consequences of your actions?
As you have stated "Because more women will die in illegal abortions in states where it is illegal"
Are you saying women are unable to follow the law if roe is overturned. And the issue is decided state by state?
and keep them not only legal, but paid for by the government. Then, allow all other abortions on the following conditions;
1. They are paid for by private party. This would either be by the pregant woman and/or the sperm donor, his and/or her family or in the case of hardship, those elite that are only politically active because of their love of the downtrodden (streisand, baldwin, decrapio, michael moore et al). There should be more than enough money available for these women to have a pleasant abortion and maybe make a nice little vacation out of it. Hollywood could become the abortion capitol of the U.S. Hell, I bet the blue states, mine included (MN) would compete for these National Abortion Centers.
2. After the "procedure" is successfully completed and the unborn child is killed (or harvested) and disposed of (or sold to highest bidder), the woman is sterilized so she no longer is at risk of having this happen to her again.
Doesn't this sound like a good compromise. Pro-choicers get what they want and the Pro-lifers can at least mitigate the annual loss in excess of 3+ million killed annually.
There are a good number of blue-collar union types out there who vote Rep solely due to their anti-choice stance. Overturn Roe-v-Wade and they go back to voting Dem. The Reps need to keep this issue out there, and ironically cannot therefore do anything about it.
Well, that's what I heard, anyway.
This President opposes abortion, as should anyone who loves the Constitution, since --- as pro-choice legal scholar John Hart Ely put it --- "It is not constitutional law, and it doesn't even pretend to be."
Those of you who are pro-abortion --- certainly a majority on this board, and perhaps even a majority in the country --- should have the courage of your convictions and, if you think that killing babies should be constitutionally-protected, you should put forward a constitutional amendment protecting abortion. Hell, were I in Congress, I'd even vote to send it to the States, even though I would oppose it at that level.
The problem with the pro-abortionists is that they lack the courage of their convictions, and probably realize that a vast majority of Americans oppose a vast majority of abortions.
-- Modified on 11/18/2004 6:50:06 AM
is that their mothers wern't.
this is a constitutional question.
But he certainly has a right to his opinion.
One of the more interesting things about the constitution is that if all of the constitutional rights set out in the Bill of Rights were not already there, and had to be ratified anew by 38 states, I have no doubt that many of them would fail to be ratified.
and he does so taking the honest position that, while he supports allowing abortion as public policy, it is in no way a constitutional issue.
Justice White (in dissent), a Kennedy appointee, agreed.
The problem with you Lefties --- and the evidence is massive after the President's mandate in the late election --- is that you hate the exercise of democratic choice when it goes against you. You fail to realize that there are plenty of Conservatives, Justice Antonin Scalia among them, who would have no way to attack the legitimacy of abortion as a public policy if it were --- as it was prior to 1973 --- left to the decision of legislatures.
And I would dispute your conclusion about the Bill of Rights. Of course, the First Amendment has already been eviscerated by McCain-Feingold so-called "Campaign Finance Reform."
We could go into a discussion of the Constitution, but I will say simply that the notion that the minority should be protected from the "tyranny of the majority" is key to my idea of what our American democracy is.
If I understand your comment about Scalia correctly, are you saying that you believe that abortion should be made illegal in all 50 states, regardless of how the legislatures of those states vote?
Sounds like we will have to agree to disagree about my conclusion about the Bill of Rights.
gave us a Bill of Rights, which Alexander Hamilton correctly predicted would be viewed as an exhaustive listing. He wrote in one of the Federalist Papers (can't remember which one right now; mea culpa) that the Constitution, rightly understood (i.e., as a document limiting government's powers), would be viewed as a bill of rights itself. And yes, I know that James Madison (someone I revere) was the primary sponsor of the Bill of Rights, and I think it was one of his (few) mistakes. Hamilton had the better argument there.
And no, you don't understand my comment about Scalia correctly. While I do believe that abortion should be made illegal in all 50 states, I recognize that it won't be, because not all of the legislatures in those states will vote to do so. As a constitutionalist first, and a pro-lifer second, that is an outcome that I can live with, and I believe that Scalia could, too. As a believer in judicial restraint, I would oppose efforts of pro-lifers to have the courts write their preferences into a Constitution which does not speak to the issue, just as I oppose the thus-far successful efforts of pro-abortionists to write their preferences into the Constitution.
Then again, maybe you're right about the Bill of Rights. After all, gun grabbers on the Left and at the ACLU have been ignoring the Second Amendment for decades.
akin to those you would characterize as "activist judges" today?
Do you think the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because the Constitution itself, "rightly understood", should have been sufficient?
I think you make an interesting and defensible argument about the Second Amendment and gun control. Will you concede, then, that several of the other amendments would also have rough sledding if they had to be ratified anew by 38 states?
I agree with Hamilton that it was unnecessary (and I thought I already said that). And whether I do or not does not diminish my ability to take the intellectual position that it has been a source of much judicial mischief.
And I was merely referring to an act of Madison (putting forward the Bill of Rights) which reflected legal positivism, not that legal positivism was his general philosophy. I certainly would not slander Madison by comparing him to legal positivists or activist judges of today.
As to your last question, it depends. Were the Bill of Rights presented as such, they would probably pass. But polls since the 50s have shown that individual provisions, when not identified as part of the Bill of Rights, don't fare so well with the electorate. It is likely the result of a woeful constitutional ignorance, as well as the judicial meataxe which has been taken to many of its provisions (for instance, Supreme Court rulings on school prayer and public displays of religion, the monstrosity which is so-called campaign finance reform, the constitutionality of laws forcing individuals to pay union dues as a condition of employment, the exclusionary rule (a prudent of not necessarily required response to police illegality), etc.).
So the question is, are you speaking of the Bill of Rights as it is, or the Bill of Rights as courts have read it to be?
part of our constitution.
Also glad to see you agree with my point about the individual amendments in the Bill of Rights, and how well they would fare if they needed to be ratified by 38 states today. I was indeed thinking of the same polls, which have always disappointed me. I would attribute this to a lack of understanding of our most fundamental ideas about what our democracy should be.
As to your last sentence, that's the rub, isn't it? You contend that "activist judges" have misinterpreted the Bill of Rights, and I disagree. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
Good to participate in a civil discussion with you, without the nastiness and rancor that often undercuts the value of this board as a place to discuss ideas.
I hate that term...Pro abortionists.... I myself have never had to contend with the options I still have today and make what must be a heartwrenching decision. But I do believe it is Prochoice. I doubt anybody, even the irresponsible, multi aborting women are proabortion. I doubt anyone gets pregnant just so they can abort a baby. It is so annoying for "Pro life" supporters to call the other half "Pro Abortion". THe Pro Choice people dont talk people into having abortions, nor do they dictate it as being the option to take. They promote choice and as far as my experiences have been-choice includes birth, abortion, adoption, and the saddest one of all, denial until it is too late. SO this is coming from a Pro choicer that so far hasnt had to make that choice but am damn glad I have that option still.
and I'll choose my accurate descriptions. I rarely see "pro-choicers" taking up their opponents when their labelled "anti-choice," or "anti-abortion"; to the contrary, they frequently label their opponents as such, contrary to their wishes.
And I dispute your contention that "anybody, even the irresponsible, multi aborting women are proabortion." The simple fact is that abortion is a big business in this country. Aren't those who profit from it therefore "pro-abortion"? Face it: many of those most adament supporters of "choice" are, in fact, pro-abortion. BTW, why aren't they in favor of exercising the choice which prevents pregnancy every time it's tried: abstinence (gasp!).
And saying that you "doubt anyone gets pregnant just so they can abort a baby" is a little like doubting that anyone gets drunk and drives simply so they can kill someone with their car. That's simply not the issue.
You also assert that "THe Pro Choice people dont talk people into having abortions, nor do they dictate it as being the option to take." There are plenty of studies of abortion clinics which demonstrate that the contrary is true. Moreover, if you believe that there should be the choice, then you must, by necessity, believe that there are circumstances when it is the right choice. Hence, it is entirely appropriate to use the term "pro-abortion," because so-called "pro-choicers" must, in some context, by pro-abortion.
And finally, the terms are not morally equivalent. "Pro-Life" refers to the result; "pro-choice" refers to the procedural protection. The former is a moral value; the latter is a device, devoid of moral context. Kinda like many of those who advocate it.
Coming from someone with 29 reviews, I have to wonder, were all your encounters of the nonsexual kind? Because if they werent then you werent practicing abstinence either. I disagree with you that the only sure fire way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence... I have prevented pregnancy for 22 years while having sex pretty much constantly. In that time, I became pregnant once and when I went to planned parenthood to take a test and found out for sure, they never tried to convince me to have an abortion. As a matter of fact, they said, You are pregnant. And while I was digesting that, and getting ready to leave they offered me the option to hear about all the choices.Had I said no I dont want to hear, they would have just gave me an appt. to come in and start prenatal care. I chose to hear the options, and still went in for prenatal care and had a beautiful baby. So where you get your information that clinics are places that try to force opinions is beyond me. If anything, the feeling was lets set an appt for your next visit not lets set an appt for an abortion. YOu are truly one screwed up individual as welll as that snafu guy and funtime. You are in an extremely risky hobby I would hate to think that if the unfortunate happened and while practicing birth control something went awry what you would want your "provider" to do... or would you do something yourself so ---forget that thought... I dont really want to stoop to your level and start comparing something such as choice to other crimes because that has nothing to do with this discussion. It is just as moral to be a pro life supporter as it is to be a pro choice supporter.
... only outlaws will have abortions.
"Vera Drake" is a very interesting film (with no great relevence to this discussion) that deals with the subject of abortion. It is set in England in the 1950s & is a very affecting character (no good guys and bad guys). Nobody's mind is changed in the picture. Regardless of your own opinion, it is worth seeing to get some sense of the human issues affecting the people you disagree with
Harry