IBTG81 Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 They ought to work a little harder protecting the ones already out of the womb. Ah, screw them. 619643[/snapback] Bravo!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 In the case of Wacka vs. Forces of Reason, 365 US 442 (2003), Justice Souter, writing for the majority, held that "There is no specific right to 'not to be shot in the face during a quail hunt' however, it has long been considered an inalienable right accept in cases of the extremely stupid where it is thought to be an act of mercy." 619570[/snapback] I'm assuming, of course, that Souter spelled it "accept" rather than "except" in deference to Wacka's English skills?
bobblehead Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 They are coming to protect a child. 619596[/snapback] They just haven't found a way to judge a fetus yet.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 They are coming to protect a child. 619596[/snapback] Who here aside from VABills honestly believes that a zygote and a child are the same thing?
Chilly Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 I'm assuming, of course, that Souter spelled it "accept" rather than "except" in deference to Wacka's English skills? 619675[/snapback] Who here aside from VABills honestly believes that a zygote and a child are the same thing? 619694[/snapback] Zygote is just new age slang for child.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Zygote is just new age slang for child. 619720[/snapback] Not going down that road, I am neither God, nor a doctor. Can't judge, my attitude is if all women want to get together an outlaw abortions that is fine by me, in lieu of that I want it safe, legal but very rare. I do not want to go back to a lot of botched back alley abortions. From a political standpoint this should get interesting really fast..??? another Carl Rove plot right before a critical election? Could be... especially if the SCOTUS rules right before the election or plans to rule anywhere near it, and if so, how does the affect the election, could be a wash. Will it gin up the right wing to turn out, a big concern for the GOP now?
Typical TBD Guy Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Who here aside from VABills honestly believes that a zygote and a child are the same thing? 619694[/snapback] I bet almost everybody (90%+) here doesn't believe they're the same thing. A more interesting question would be to ask what people's opinions are on mid-term/late-term abortions.
olivier in france Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 I think your real argument is that it is not covered as part of the constitutional right to privacy thus it is a valid target for local and state law. If it is a constitutional right, it is not a valid target for local or state law. States rights is not the issue, the constitutional right to privacy, whether there is one and what it covers is the issue. This particular law makes it a crime, a doctor can go to jail for 5 years for performing one and it makes no exceptions for rape or incest. It does if it is necessary to save the life of the mother but given that the doctor goes to jail if she is wrong when she makes that judgment, I don't see many doctors performing abortions for that reason, too risky. That "exception" given the punishment, is no exception at all. Getting back to the notion that letting states decide this because you "can have it every way you want" is a good way to go, I think that reasoning is short sighted. If fails to appreciate that the right to life movement is not going to be happy with abortions being available in other states. They will certainly press for a federal ban and if you can pass a federal ban on "partial birth" abortions, why not all abortions? What, in the absence of Roe, would prevent that? The states rights, let them all decided democratically, etc, justification is a load of bull in my opinion. States rights won't matter a bit when they try to stop abortions in California, NY, Mass and Ill. Further, the way the law is now, we can all have it the "way we want". You can't stop someone from having one and they can't make you have one. I don't see why its a bad thing for the federal government to decide this for all individuals but it is okay for a state government to decide this for all individuals. If deciding the way we want is such a great goal, then let people decide for themeselves. Peace. 619449[/snapback] very very good Mickey. i wanted to answer Vabills before reading you but you did it a lot better that i'd have ever done.!!
KD in CA Posted March 7, 2006 Author Posted March 7, 2006 I bet almost everybody (90%+) here doesn't believe they're the same thing. A more interesting question would be to ask what people's opinions are on mid-term/late-term abortions. 619746[/snapback] And there is the rub. I don't consider a two week old clump of cells to be a baby, but I do equate an 8 1/2 month old fetus with one. And I have no idea at what point that line is crossed.
UConn James Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 People honestly think that this issue is casual enough to risk having it change willy-nilly, back-and-forth depending on which party is in power in a state house in any given session? THIS CRAP WAS DECIDED IN 1973, SUCH THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!!!!!! CAN WE PLEASE GET ON WITH THE REAL BUSINESS OF THE NATION? Furthermore, I'll tell you exactly what this and the Kansas legislation is: 1) A desire to kick the tires of the new Supreme Court, if this stuff even gets that far, which I highly doubt. 2) A bid to wrap up the vote of a certain, however small, percentage of the electorate that will base their vote purely on self-righteous moral/religious grounds. For politicians, this is the easiest vote they ever got because they don't need to earn it and they don't need to buy it.
30dive Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 I'm sooo confused, I thought "Abortion is Murder", so now in South Dakata the penalty for murder is 5 years?
Mickey Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 very very good Mickey. i wanted to answer Vabills before reading you but you did it a lot better that i'd have ever done.!! 619775[/snapback] Nice to see you are still around olivier. What are the French up to lately?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 Nice to see you are still around olivier. What are the French up to lately? 620133[/snapback] I believe the answer to that question is: "!@#$ you, stupid American! We are French..."
Mickey Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 People honestly think that this issue is casual enough to risk having it change willy-nilly, back-and-forth depending on which party is in power in a state house in any given session? THIS CRAP WAS DECIDED IN 1973, SUCH THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT AN ABORTION, DON'T HAVE ONE!!!!!! CAN WE PLEASE GET ON WITH THE REAL BUSINESS OF THE NATION? Furthermore, I'll tell you exactly what this and the Kansas legislation is: 1) A desire to kick the tires of the new Supreme Court, if this stuff even gets that far, which I highly doubt. 2) A bid to wrap up the vote of a certain, however small, percentage of the electorate that will base their vote purely on self-righteous moral/religious grounds. For politicians, this is the easiest vote they ever got because they don't need to earn it and they don't need to buy it. 619931[/snapback] It will get that far. The law be challenged almost immediately, just as soon as a plaintiff can be found by whatever groups funds the legal challenge. It will be held unconstitutional pursuant to Roe and its progeny (yes, the abortion decision has progeny, how is that for irony?). Then the state of SD will appeal and no matter which side wins, the loser will appeal to the next highest court and so on until it reaches the Supremes. The only way they dodge it is if they decline to hear it which means the Circuit Ct. opinion becomes final on that case. I have to beleive that the Cir. Ct. opinion at that time will be to invalidate the law since a Cir. Ct. doesn't have the power to overturn a Supreme Ct. precedent like Roe. Thus, a refusal to hear the case by the SCOTUS would be tantamount to a reaffirmation of Roe. I don't see this SCT doing that. I think they would have to take it. Me prediction is that they will hear the case and invalidate the statute but find a convoluted basis for doing so that is tangential, unrelated to the core issues. Thus, they will dispose of the case for un-Roe reasons so that the law is out but Roe not strengthened. The basic message will be to tell SD that Roe will be disposed of but in the way the supremes want it done, not in the was SD wants it done. Roberts and Alito will not want to be remembered as being political judges appointed to overturn a specific precedent to achieve the overarching political goal of one party involving the dominant social issue of the day. They certainly are not going to want to be remembered as having expanded the scope and power of the government at the expense of individuals, non-fetal ones anyway. They want to overturn it without overturning it so they can credibly argue that they were not nominated just to kill Roe and in fact, did not do so. Mavericks defying prediction is what they will want to be known as. SD's approach, which I credit as at least being honest and straightforward about the whole thing, is going to by Kryptonite for these Super Supremes.
Mickey Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 I'm sooo confused, I thought "Abortion is Murder", so now in South Dakata the penalty for murder is 5 years? 620072[/snapback] It is actually even more puzzling than that. As explained in an article in Slate by William Saletan (Saletan), the law states: "...life begins at the time of conception," and "...each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization." But it also states: "Nothing in section 2 of this Act may be construed to prohibit the sale, use, prescription, or administration of a contraceptive measure, drug or chemical, if it is administered prior to the time when a pregnancy could be determined through conventional medical testing." Here is the kicker, "conventional" testing can't determine whether fertilization has occurred until certain hormones are released at implantation which is usually 5-7 days after fertilization. Thus, a fertilized egg can be treated with a "contraceptive measure, drug or chemical" as long as it is done less than 5-7 days after fertilization. Accordingly, a fertilized egg can be elimenated through the ingestion of drug or chemical as long as it is done during that mystery time period even though killing a fertilized egg is "murder". That means the law declares as murder that which it specifically allows. It permits what it calls murder under certain conditions but not under others. Those conditions are dependent on the technology involved with "conventional testing". So that is the razors edge between murder that gets you jail time and murder that doesn't. As Saletan points out, the reason for this is to give a backdoor out to rape vicitms. Pro-lifers couldn't allow an overt exception for rape and incest and be consistent in their point that all abortions are murders. This provides such an exception for women in such terrible circumstances but hides it in this convoluted way involving conventional testing and such. It clears the way for a rape victim to to take an abortion pill the "morning after". As much as they are trying to hide that inconsistency though, its is right there. As Saletan puts it: "Welcome to [the] world of ambiguity, pro-lifers. Out of compassion for women in tragic but medically non-threatening circumstances, you agree that unborn life, up to a certain stage of development, may be aborted. Now we're just quibbling over the details."
Adam Posted March 7, 2006 Posted March 7, 2006 This is what happens when you have religious nutballs making and enforcing laws... 619338[/snapback] Not that I think it should be illegal, but its so easy to call people nutballs who disagree with you. Maybe they think the same of you- maybe both think that of me. Everyone has a right to their stand on an issue. If you don' like the laws, then vote for somebody else- great system we have, IMHO...best in the world.
Chilly Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Not that I think it should be illegal, but its so easy to call people nutballs who disagree with you. Maybe they think the same of you- maybe both think that of me. Everyone has a right to their stand on an issue. If you don' like the laws, then vote for somebody else- great system we have, IMHO...best in the world. 620649[/snapback] Nah, people in this country who are extremely religious tend to be nutballs.
VABills Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Nah, people in this country who are extremely religious tend to be nutballs. 620667[/snapback] I think of myself as religious, but do not consider myself a nutball. Me thinks you feel guilty about something and feel the need to lash out at things you don't understand.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 I think of myself as religious, but do not consider myself a nutball. 620668[/snapback] Whereas the rest of us, coincidentally, consider you a nutball but not necessarily religious.
Alaska Darin Posted March 8, 2006 Posted March 8, 2006 Whereas the rest of us, coincidentally, consider you a nutball but not necessarily religious. 620720[/snapback] Here, here. Careful, he may challenge you to a round of golf. Queue the banjos.
Recommended Posts