It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

farglebargle -> It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 5:46:31 PM)

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_55069.shtml

Justice Ginsburg's dissent says it best.

Apparently Women are now the property of The State and must obey them, risks to their health being irrelevant.

Nice Going Supreme Court, another "decision" which proves your uselessness.




FatDomDaddy -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 9:10:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Justice Ginsburg's dissent says it best.

Apparently Women are now the property of The State and must obey them, risks to their health being irrelevant.

Nice Going Supreme Court, another "decision" which proves your uselessness.



The Nation bleed generations of its youth for the sin of Slavery.

As I have read your posts, I would have wagered you would have been an abolitionist farglebargle.

The abolitionist movement and the "pro life" movement share the ideals of this country, that all, ALL are entitled  to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Show me that a fertilized human egg, allowed to live, will form into anything other than a human being and I may grant you your point.



lockedaway -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 9:17:00 PM)

Good post FatDomDaddy.  What was outlawed?  Wasn't it a partial birth abortion?  There is no right to abortion except what was created by the court in their tortured decision of Roe v. Wade which has been hailed as one of the worst examples of a result driven decision.  The issue of abortion should be a state's rights issue.  Some states would outlaw abortion outright and, of course, a number of other states would not.  For the record, I support a woman's rights to abortion but I oppose partial birth abortions. 



LotusSong -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 9:26:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Show me that a fertilized human egg, allowed to live, will form into anything other than a human being and I may grant you your point.



Ah.. George Bush is a great example... he's not human.



FatDomDaddy -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 9:38:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong
Ah.. George Bush is a great example... he's not human.


Ya know....I keep hearing that from the Left, but they created his political career.



Vendaval -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 9:42:40 PM)

Hello FB,
 
Here is an excerpt from CNN -
 
"Three federal appeals courts had ruled against the government, saying the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a "health exception" for pregnant women facing a medical emergency. The outcome of this latest challenge before the court's new ideological makeup could turn on the legal weight given past rulings on the health exception.

In states where such exceptions are allowed, the lists of possible health risks include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure most often have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors are given the discretion to recommend when the late-term procedure should be performed.
The federal law has never gone into effect, pending the outcome of nearly three years of legal appeals.

Specifically, the ban encompasses what doctors call "intact dilation and evacuation" (also known as IDX), which Congress in its legislation termed inhumane.

It is a rarely used second-trimester procedure, designed to reduce complications to the woman. More common is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), used in 95 percent of pre-viability second-trimester abortions, according to Planned Parenthood. Both are generally performed after the 21st week of pregnancy.

A major part of the legal dispute was whether the federal ban also includes the relatively more common "standard D&E abortions." The government contends the law does not, and is sufficiently narrow not to place an "undue burden" on a woman's reproductive choices.

Raw numbers were also at the heart of the debate, because the two sides disagreed on how often the procedure is performed. Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Justice Department's top lawyer before the court, suggested it is rarely performed, and that other medical options are available, so banning it would therefore not be a real barrier to women.

Abortions rights supporters say "intact" abortions are a medically accepted pre-viability, second-trimester procedure.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, some states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" on the issue over the years."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html






DomKen -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 9:49:28 PM)

A long time ago I noticed something rather odd, virtually all anti abortion activists are men. Seems rather strange to me.

I think the state should be no more involved in a woman's reproductive choices than it is involved in her other health care decisions.



Archer -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 9:56:44 PM)

If the prevention of abortions was the real objective then why is it the same folks are the ones who advocate abstinance only sex ed? Want to prevent abortions teach folks how to avoid pregnancy. Good primary birth control would reduce the demand for them by more than all the cases ever before the courts.



juliaoceania -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 9:57:38 PM)

That is not necessarily true. Some of the most staunch anti choice people I have known were very young women. I should add Christian too. I went to college with several who were so into the right to life movement that they volunteered their time to counseling pregnant women, babysitting for single moms that needed help. Some of them raised money for baby supplies. I respected their position (there are about 5 or so young women I knew that were this into this movement), I had admiration for their willingness to give of themselves for their beliefs and their acknowledgement that poverty and lack of resources cause many women to adopt the choice of having an abortion. I knew these people because several joined my honor society together as friends.

I think that the simplistic and black and white world that many inhabit is rather myiopic. People do not want to pay for other people's kids, but they do not want them to have abortions either. My position is that if we are going to be a society that honors life, we cannot be selective about which life we honor.

The lack of a health exception is rather telling to me. So few late term abortions are performed, and they are not usually for any other reason than a health concern.



Vendaval -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 10:00:55 PM)

That is my big concern too.  Because the likely outcome in those situations is that both the woman and the fetus would die.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
The lack of a health exception is rather telling to me. So few late term abortions are performed, and they are not usually for any other reason than a health concern.



Vendaval -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 10:04:37 PM)

That is what boggles the mind.  Reproductive health education and preventative medicine,
i.e. contraception are the best ways to prevent unintended pregnancies. 
Abstinence only is not a realistic expectation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
If the prevention of abortions was the real objective then why is it the same folks are the ones who advocate abstinance only sex ed? Want to prevent abortions teach folks how to avoid pregnancy. Good primary birth control would reduce the demand for them by more than all the cases ever before the courts.



NakedGirlScout -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/18/2007 10:08:44 PM)

I personally don't know of any woman who would deliberately go through the trauma of having an abortion after she was already well underway and could feel the baby. It seems to me that it would take enormously exceptional situations to make a woman choose that option. I agree with the other posters, if primary birth control was given for free then the need for abortions would decrease. I can remember being a teenager and not knowing where to get it, not being able to afford it, or not being sure I could have my privacy if I went to a clinic (that they would tell my parents). It was only sheer luck that I didn't face this option early in my own life.



farglebargle -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/19/2007 5:05:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle
Justice Ginsburg's dissent says it best.

Apparently Women are now the property of The State and must obey them, risks to their health being irrelevant.

Nice Going Supreme Court, another "decision" which proves your uselessness.


As I have read your posts, I would have wagered you would have been an abolitionist farglebargle.


The Lord, through MOSES set My People Free.

They are free, and they ain't going to be enslaved again.

http://www.jpfo.org

quote:


The abolitionist movement and the "pro life" movement share the ideals of this country, that all, ALL are entitled to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".


Well, in this case, excepting the Mother. This Law, the way it's written, says The Mother MUST DIE if it prevents the abortion. Medical Necessity for the mother's health is irrelevant.

By denying the Mother HER Freedom and Liberty, you pretend to support that of her child?

What's that called, when The Government owns all the People, and the must obey? The Mother must obey, and the Child must obey ( or they'll be sent to Foster Care, eh? )?

Communism?

Include Me Out!


quote:


Show me that a fertilized human egg, allowed to live, will form into anything other than a human being and I may grant you your point.


You mean like the MILLIONS of fertilized human eggs which spontaneously miscarry all the time when something "Just ain't right?"

I expect you have a point, but just picked a really shitty example.





farglebargle -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/19/2007 5:09:12 AM)

quote:

Good post FatDomDaddy. What was outlawed? Wasn't it a partial birth abortion? There is no right to abortion except what was created by the court in their tortured decision of Roe v. Wade which has been hailed as one of the worst examples of a result driven decision.


Define "Unenumerated Right", The Declaration of Independence, and explain the relationship between them, then 9th Amendment, and 10th Amendments of the Constitution.

If you cannot control YOUR OWN SELF, you aren't free.

I would offer, in the extreme case, that The Mother IS for purposes of the Declaration of Independence, ones "Creator", and therefor does the endowment of "Certain Inalienable Rights".

Therefore what The Mother CHOOSES to do with HER CREATION is HER CHOICE, and it's nothing but SOCIALISM to suggest The Gubmint has any role.



farglebargle -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/19/2007 5:12:40 AM)

And another thing, I wanna see MEDICAL SCHOOL DIPLOMAS from these Supreme Court Justices before they pretend to be Doctors, don't you?




LotusSong -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/19/2007 8:56:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong
Ah.. George Bush is a great example... he's not human.


Ya know....I keep hearing that from the Left, but they created his political career.



As the Right will create Hillary's (or whatever leftist takes control)
 
I evaluate him as a person..not a politician.
 
If men  were the ones to get pregnant.. abortions would be revered.  
 
If men are so concerned about the propagating their holy "seed".. oral sex would be outlawed. 

Now back to the topic presented.



Marc2b -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/19/2007 9:57:07 AM)

quote:

Therefore what The Mother CHOOSES to do with HER CREATION is HER CHOICE, and it's nothing but SOCIALISM to suggest The Gubmint has any role.

Please don’t jump to any conclusion as to my views on abortion, states rights, etc. This is just a philosophical question:

If the mother is the creator of the unborn child and therefore has say over what to do with her creation would not the father have equal say? She may be incubating the child but in terms of creating it, he played an equal role.



farglebargle -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/19/2007 10:10:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Therefore what The Mother CHOOSES to do with HER CREATION is HER CHOICE, and it's nothing but SOCIALISM to suggest The Gubmint has any role.

Please don’t jump to any conclusion as to my views on abortion, states rights, etc. This is just a philosophical question:

If the mother is the creator of the unborn child and therefore has say over what to do with her creation would not the father have equal say? She may be incubating the child but in terms of creating it, he played an equal role.


Personally, I don't believe so. While some cultures place a lot of importance on it, biologically, Males are pretty much just Sperm Donors.




Sanity -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/19/2007 10:12:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Please don’t jump to any conclusion as to my views on abortion, states rights, etc. This is just a philosophical question:

If the mother is the creator of the unborn child and therefore has say over what to do with her creation would not the father have equal say? She may be incubating the child but in terms of creating it, he played an equal role.


And why would the "right to abort" end at birth



NeedToUseYou -> RE: It's like watching Dred Scott, but this time it's Women... (4/19/2007 10:45:41 AM)

I hate abortion. The vast majority of them are only for the convenience of the mother, father, or both. It is impossible for me to feel emotionally bad about forcing someone not to kill their baby. That shouldn't even be a consideration, that someone shouldn't want to kill their offspring. Yeah, sure rarely it's done to save a womans life, that isn't the standard though. That would be like take an example of someone driving at a high rate of speed to get to the hospital because of an emergency, and applying it to all speeders. I'd bet the proportions are similiar. I did look it up at one point, and the medically necessary abortions are miniscule.

Anyway, all that being said, as long as we agree what is in a woman's body she has the right to do with as she pleases, then I don't see why any ban is in place. That being the present assumption, then the ban really doesn't make sense.

It does make me sick though, in real terms. Like I'm sitting here feeling a slightly ill, just trying to imagine how 90% of these abortions are completely just killing it for convenience. Regardless, of whether or not women have the right to have an abortion. And I am Pro-Choice politically,  though my personal view is it is morally wrong. It is absolutely nothing to be proud of at all, that for some reason this country is so out of control, it has to have a million+ abortions a year. It's crazy.... The million aren't caused by rubbers breaking. Sure a few, but if that was causing all of them, we need a recall.  People could use birth control, rubbers, oral, anal, whatever. But for some reason a Million+ abortions still happen/year mostly because people are irresponsible, and don't god forbid take a birth control pill, or wear a rubber. Wow, dead baby, fetus, whatever ones leanings dictate calling it, versus taking a pill,  wearing a rubber, or partaking in oral, hands job, whatever. Seems simple to me, but what do I know.

I doubt many Pro-Lifers would have as much of a problem with abortion(of course the fanatics would, but most people aren't fanatics), if they were relegated to the rape, incest, medical condition, birth control failure, range. But they aren't for the most part the numbers prove that. They are caused by horny irresponsible people. That's most of them. The only good thing I can figure that comes from it is that in most cases, where it was caused by irresponible people acting completely irresponsible is the kid won't have to endure the parents. That's the end of the good list.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875