Abortion and Morality

[vyo476]

Nothing weak about it. How can it be weak when it's already been debated and litigated all the way up to the highest level of the United States court system and my position is the standing rule? The fact is that the Supreme Court does not give personhood until viability. Everyone including them knows every biological reason you state and still they recognize the varying degrees of development and weigh that with the rights of the woman involved. Sometimes in law there is the reality of compromise verdicts. I see that as a good thing in this instance, you don't. But the ruling is the ruling until it changes. So as of now you are not winning. If you were abortion would be illegal. Just isn't gonna happen. The vast majority of the American people believe women should be allowed the choice. Even Bush as slow as he is recognized the numbers. When asked about overturning Roe he said quote, America isn't ready for that.

Two words, Top Gun: "Dred Scott."

 

[TruthAboveAll]

etc..... There are no less than 15 cases working their way through the superior courts that challenge roe. If you are interested, feel free to do the research on your own, or sit back smugly and be surprised as roe is eroded until it falls.

Just an interesting side note, Pale. When you consider that at best there were 20 major opinions issued by the Supremes between 1973 and today, the 15 cases that could possibly make it to the top (probably within 2-4 years) is a stunning number.

And while you are at it, research the couple of hundred times the court has reversed itself. Most of those cases stood over 34 years before they were overturned. The amount of time a case stands means nothing.

So true. One excellent book to read is titled oddly enough The Supreme Court, by William Rehnquist. Yes, that would be Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist. This is a great historical journey of the SC.

Another is Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, by Mark Levin. He being firmly in Constitutional-ism, armed with substantiated facts and case histories, he's written a tough read. It's hard to realize how powerful these men and women are, and how many of the majority opinions truly have been unconstitutional.

Here is another place where your reason fails. America didn't make abortion legal. Nine unelected, and unaccountable judges did and it was a very liberal court that did it. Roe rests entirely on how liberal the court is. A court that is concerned more with constitutional integrity than liberal social engineering can overturn the decision as easily as the liberal cout found it.

Roe v Wade was a slim majority decision, 5-4. Dissenting opinions were very strong. And the Supremes are not totally unaccountable. They actually can be impeached and/or censured. In actuality, they are only as powerful as our elected officials allow them to be.

If America had legalized abortion, then law would have been written and legislated by the houses of congress. If America had legalized abortion, then this argument wouldn't exist because it would be very difficult to ever change the law. Of course, you know as well as I that in spite of your claim that the majority's approval of roe that abortion on demand woud have a snowball's chance in hell of making it through the house and senate.

But it isn't law and is entirely dependent upon the relative liberalism or conservativism of the court. The present court is quite a different creature than the one that decided roe.

Which represents the major flaw in the SC, our judicial system in general. The judiciary is purposed to make rulings of and by laws, not legislate from the bench. This is where Roe v Wade is fundamentally flawed. You are absolutely correct. There IS no law legalizing abortion.

Please, if any of you abortion supporters can, please PLEASE supply me with the LAW. I will gladly eat crow if you can produce it. Where Roe was a "landmark" decision, it literally eclipsed all abortion-related issues, lumping all of them into one broad, bench-originated legislative piece. To undo that will take steps, an issue at a time.

Fear not all you dead baby advocates. You are not going to wake up tomorrow and find that Roe has been fully reversed. It doesn't work that way. At least it shouldn't work that way. And with the latest trend in the SC back toward Constitutional law, it won't happen... all at once anyway...

And be pleased all you like but the fact remains that you are quite unable to defend the roe decision. If there were a good defense of it, it would be well circulated by the pro choice movement and you would have little difficulty knocking at least one of the legs from my position rather than finding yourself reduced to personal attacks against me and sanctimonious platitudes proclaiming the righteousness of abortion.

The whole defense of Roe is built upon flawed judicial review. "Evidence" was manufactured, situations exaggerated, abortion industry involvement. A case that was propped up, prodded and promoted by a pair of overly-ambitious lawyers. The defense of Roe is a chimera. Those who defend it based on the SC ruling itself, are allying themselves to a case whose whole history is fabricated and flawed.

But then they'd probably choose to demonize and attempt to discredit Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe.

 

[top gun]

Two words, Top Gun: "Dred Scott."

There are major differences in Dred Scott and the Choice issue though. And I certainly never said that the Supreme Court has not overturned decisions. What I'm saying to Pale is I'm not going to post every single thing in the Roe decision every time he asks me to just to make the same point. I believe in the Roe decision on its merits (we know what those are) and it has not been overturned.

Abortion is a lot more interpretive than Dred Scott. In Dred Scott you had born individuals. I've posted evidence several times that in the era that these laws were written with the exception of the Catholics (which by the way were specifically disliked by our founders) life was considered birth or something very close to birth like crowning. That was the definition of life. These Rights were established on the understanding at the time. You can't just automatically take the legal leap and say... well "IF" they had known this they would have done that. No one knows that because it didn't happen that way. That's not what the law "Right" was. It was just what it was at the time. Nothing more.

That's why there is modern day interpretation. Things are much different now than back then. Things evolve and they often evolve toward the wants and needs of society. That's where Pro-Choice stands at 65% approval v. 29% disapproval. And world wide the gap is huge for Pro-Choice with all major industrialized countries on board. So it's quite different than a slave issue circa 1857.

Legal justice has come a long way since Dred Scott. The case can even be made that the Roe decision freed women from one method of control by men and established their privacy protection under the law.

Like I said it really comes down to this. If at least 65% already even while it's legal believe Roe should not be overturned (and I've posted that recent poll) and the Justices do the interpreting, and the President appoints Justices, and the people vote for the President... It's not hard to do the math an see that a major change that would create a situation where even the Birth Control Pill would be outlawed and American women would be thrown into prison for murder isn't going to happen.

That's just my opinion. I respect your right to hold your own. Time will tell who's right.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

top gun wrote:

Actually I think there is some sense to be made out of this statement... can't believe I said that . I think people see the neo-con agenda as much more sinister than they did before Bush. Even though like I've said multiple times the American people and the American voting system would never allow abortion to be taken away permanently there is the Supreme Court appointment issue to always be concerned about. Yet another reason the Dems will continue to win for some time.

But all that aside I think that as soon as the votes present themselves and there is a Democratic President the issue should be cast into law. The majority does favor it 65% to 29%. Let the neo-con sabre rattling about taking away the right be the inspiration to set the course. I'm all for it! Carry on!

1) Bush is not neo-conservative. In actuality, Bush is not strongly conservative at all. If people see it as sinister, it is based on lack of understanding and the blatant misuse of the term.

2) The American people and the American voting system? Right. You have no idea what they will or will not "allow." Dems will win, if they win, because they are feeding the electorate lies, half-truths and using class envy and fear tactics. Nuff said there - that is going off subject.

3) Please cite your source for your 65%-29% margin of support for abortion. I've no doubt that the status quo of "legalized" abortion in the past 34 years has resulted in a growing acceptance of it. 34 years basically represents a generation which has basically lived up to nearly half their expected lifespans with it in place. But then again, many of the respondents to these polls can't even tell you who their state senators are, who the candidates were in the last presidential election, and think that oral sex isn't sex.

Strolling along the ether-highway, a few poll results I found:

L.A. Times poll
-41% favored making abortion illegal with a few exceptions.
-24% favored making abortion always legal
-19% favored making abortion legal most of the time.
-12% favored making abortion totally illegal.
(A local poll, in a strongly liberal area)

-53% with leanings toward making abortion illegal
-43% with leanings toward abortion legality
(Interesting that only 24% favored unrestricted, legal abortion.)

May 2007 CNN Poll http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/09/rel6e.pdf

A total of 1028 respondents polled:

-66% thought government should make "partial birth" abortions illegal
-28% thought it should be legal
-50% said they were pro-life
-45% said they were pro-choice
-2% said they didn't know what the terms meant (HUH?)
-2% said they were mixed/both/neither (Must be the Independents)
-1% had no opinion
(Interesting again, that 5% had such ambiguous responses to the actual question With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life? without being able to answer A or B. Thats 51.4 people out of 1028. Quite amazing, really...)

 

[top gun]

TruthAboveAll;20372]

1) Bush is not neo-conservative. In actuality, Bush is not strongly conservative at all. If people see it as sinister, it is based on lack of understanding and the blatant misuse of the term.

I agree with you that even Bush is not at the neo-con level. But that just goes to show even those slightly more moderate than neo-cons but in the same general gene pool realize and have stated that the country would not accept a ban on abortion and all that curtails.

2) The American people and the American voting system? Right. You have no idea what they will or will not "allow." Dems will win, if they win, because they are feeding the electorate lies, half-truths and using class envy and fear tactics. Nuff said there - that is going off subject.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I'll not cite all the major headline reasons why but I strongly believe the country has Republican fatigue and will continue to allow Democratic numbers to build. Just today in my state Republican Debora Pryce announced she would not run for re-election and I saw on the Daily Kos another long timer, I think from Mississippi, just announced the same. They're already looking for other jobs because I believe they see the handwriting on the wall.

3) Please cite your source for your 65%-29% margin of support for abortion. I've no doubt that the status quo of "legalized" abortion in the past 34 years has resulted in a growing acceptance of it. 34 years basically represents a generation which has basically lived up to nearly half their expected lifespans with it in place. But then again, many of the respondents to these polls can't even tell you who their state senators are, who the candidates were in the last presidential election, and think that oral sex isn't sex.

You'd have to look for it. I posted it a looooong time back. It was from a web search I did and it was a fairly recent poll. It was on just one straight up or down question. Do you support the overturning of Roe v. Wade (the woman's right to have an abortion). 65% NO... 29% yes. On one question polls on this it usually tracks 60% or better in favor of keeping Roe... high 20's low 30's for overturning it. It gets screwy when you add in multiple choice because it splits the vote all up. The other major thing no one ever mentions is this. As soon as you add in the question that mentions that the current Birth Control Pill would also become illegal under a conception on ruling the numbers go through the sky.

Personally I'm for more education. More birth control of all kinds and less abortions. But I can't ever see sending women back to the coat hanger like they were in the 50's and 60's.

 

[palerider]

Just an interesting side note, Pale. When you consider that at best there were 20 major opinions issued by the Supremes between 1973 and today, the 15 cases that could possibly make it to the top (probably within 2-4 years) is a stunning number.

Yes. It is a stunning number. If they had no merit based upon the Roe decision, they would be stricken down in the inferior courts. The pro choice side sits back in their confidence that roe will never change and really don't have any real idea of exactly how precariously Roe stands.

 

[palerider]

Nothing weak about it. How can it be weak when it's already been debated and litigated all the way up to the highest level of the United States court system and my position is the standing rule? The fact is that the Supreme Court does not give personhood until viability. Everyone including them knows every biological reason you state and still they recognize the varying degrees of development and weigh that with the rights of the woman involved. Sometimes in law there is the reality of compromise verdicts. I see that as a good thing in this instance, you don't. But the ruling is the ruling until it changes. So as of now you are not winning. If you were abortion would be illegal. Just isn't gonna happen. The vast majority of the American people believe women should be allowed the choice. Even Bush as slow as he is recognized the numbers. When asked about overturning Roe he said quote, America isn't ready for that.

Everything about your argument is weak. I do appreciate that you dropped the personal attacks, but your sanctimonious plattitudes remain entirely uninteresting.

You can not defend the roe decision, you can only hold it up in the face of an argument that exposes its unconstitutionality. That is, by definition, weak.

Let me know if you ever develop a real argument, I would be happy to rip that one to shreds for you also.

That's not what I said.

Of course it is what you said, and I quote:

"You know full well personhood in regard to a woman's right to choose has not been established before viability. You've said that yourself. "

I have never said any such thing myself.

 

[palerider]

What I'm saying to Pale is I'm not going to post every single thing in the Roe decision every time he asks me to just to make the same point. I believe in the Roe decision on its merits (we know what those are) and it has not been overturned.

To date, you have not posted a SINGLE thing from the roe decision that you have been able to defend, much less "every singl thing". Again, very weak. If you support the decision, and have even a rudimentary understanding of how it relates to the constitution, you should be able to defend it. I know that I can certainly defend any court decision that I agree with without ever having to even mention the decision itself.

The thing that is mos sad about your position is not that it is so inherently weak. What is sad is that you don't even realize how weak it is.

Legal justice has come a long way since Dred Scott. The case can even be made that the Roe decision freed women from one method of control by men and established their privacy protection under the law.

You couldn't even begin to make such a case. The roe decision gives men far more power over women than they previously had. Modern technology could establish without a doubt who fathered a child and the law certainly has the power to force the father to either support his child or face severe punishment if he doesn't. The roe decision allows men to take advantage of women and then terrorize them into killing their children by threatening a bleak future of single motherhood if they don't follow his advice.

This is evidenced in the very arguments that pro choicers give for abortion eternally stating the hardships for women because men won't support thier children. That very argument demonstrates that the roe decision has given men easier access to women's panties than they had before roe and an easy out if they don't care to be responsible for the children they father.

 

[palerider]

No. It is having my body used against my will with the possibility of damage or mortality.

No other human being has rights to my body against my will.

You keep saying that. It is really about time that you provide some real evidence that proves that under our legal system all rights are not secondary to the right to live or stop using the argument.

 

[top gun]

palerider;20391]Everything about your argument is weak. I do appreciate that you dropped the personal attacks, but your sanctimonious plattitudes remain entirely uninteresting.

You're entitled to your opinion. I personally don't like seatbelt laws for adults much. I think it's a good idea but I don't think an adult should be pulled over and fined for not wearing one. All that said I obey the law and I understand that law, although I personally don't agree with it, it has been adjudicated and a binding decision has been made. I'm glad in the case of Choice I am on the side of the long standing ruling to allow it. I have no doubt that if Roe was ever truly threatened there would be a ground swell of independent and even previously unregistered voters that would become active voters if only because of the issue of the removal of the Birth Control Pill would be on the table. The Republicans had total power... the Presidency and both houses for a very long time and Roe wasn't overturned. A law wasn't past making abortion illegal. They knew what would happen. Now with the swing in power in process I'm confident that women's rights will continue to be protected.

It's never been a goal of mine to "attack" you personally. I many instances you come across as let's say... overbearing and I have no problem confronting you in kind. I also feel that it's honorable to support the women in America. Hey, I have two daughters in their 20's. My sister in law is a past president of the Illinois chapter of NOW. That just happens in this case to bring us to loggerheads.

You can not defend the roe decision, you can only hold it up in the face of an argument that exposes its unconstitutionality. That is, by definition, weak.

It's a correct decision. It's the standing ruling. Maybe if it changes I'll have to come up with new reasons to defend it. For now I'm just in agreement.

Of course it is what you said, and I quote:

"You know full well personhood in regard to a woman's right to choose has not been established before viability. You've said that yourself. "

You must somehow be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying you've said many times that one of the reasons Roe stands is because "personhood is not being granted" in that decision. I'm not disagreeing with you.

Let me know if you ever develop a real argument, I would be happy to rip that one to shreds for you also.

Have a nice day.

 

[top gun]

palerider;20392]

You couldn't even begin to make such a case. The roe decision gives men far more power over women than they previously had. Modern technology could establish without a doubt who fathered a child and the law certainly has the power to force the father to either support his child or face severe punishment if he doesn't. The roe decision allows men to take advantage of women and then terrorize them into killing their children by threatening a bleak future of single motherhood if they don't follow his advice.

It's unfortunate that you refuse see that it's women that most want the right to choose and access to the Birth Control Pill for innumerable good reasons. I think the most telling thing is this. If "women" were the ones being "victimized" by Roe they probably wouldn't be the ones in organized support of it... just a thought.

 

[Coyote]

You keep saying that. It is really about time that you provide some real evidence that proves that under our legal system all rights are not secondary to the right to live or stop using the argument.

Where in our legal system does anyone have the right to appropriate and use another person's body against their will?

All rights are not secondary to the right to live when it comes to capital punishment.

 

[top gun]

Coyote;20425]Where in our legal system does anyone have the right to appropriate and use another person's body against their will?

Hi Coyote... there is of course nowhere.

All rights are not secondary to the right to live when it comes to capital punishment.

And there have even been innocent people killed by capital punishment. Furthermore we all know there are many other circumstances where this is the case also.

That's why we don't hunt down and try for murder every solider and their commander that commits collateral damage when full blown living breathing innocent women & children are killed? The reason isn't because it's an accident. Everyone knows before hand collateral damage is going to be a fact of the bombing. In this scenario the example is that it's OK to kill innocents as long as they aren't the main target in an attempt to kill an enemy.

There are many circumstances (this is just one) where there are surrounding mitigating circumstances that allow for the ending of life. And they are far more reaching than stopping 2 cells from developing with a Birth Control Pill or having an abortion before there are even brain waves or could survive on its own. In an imperfect world the law must be allowed to make these distinctions... and they do.

 

[Coyote]

Hi Coyote... there is of course nowhere.



And there have even been innocent people killed by capital punishment. Furthermore we all know there are many other circumstances where this is the case also.

That's why we don't we hunt down and try for murder every solider and their commander that commits collateral damage when full blown living breathing innocent women & children are killed? The reason isn't because it's an accident. Everyone knows before hand collateral damage is going to be a fact of the bombing. In this scenario the example is that it's OK to kill innocents as long as they aren't the main target in an attempt to kill an enemy.

There are many circumstances (this is just one) where there are surrounding mitigating circumstances that allow for the ending of life. And they are far more reaching than stopping 2 cells from developing with a Birth Control Pill or having an abortion before there are even brain waves or could survive on its own. In an imperfect world the law must be allowed to make these distinctions... and they do.

That's a good point!

 

[numinus]

Where in our legal system does anyone have the right to appropriate and use another person's body against their will?

How about the prohibition on the use of illegal substances?

All rights are not secondary to the right to live when it comes to capital punishment.

Nope.

Capital punishment crimes are those that relate to the rights of others to live.