Unborn victims bill

[Basebuck]

I am not debating Roe vs. Wade with you but the most significant ruling to come out of it was abortion and a womans right to it. I just think that this is governments motive for pushing this bill without having to hear all of the comotion that a anti abortion bill would cause.

 

[Buckeye69]

. . . Roe vs. Wade . . . the most significant ruling to come out of it was abortion and a womans right to it

Partly correct. The ruling could not have been made without the manufactured "right of privacy." The ruling is NOT that a woman has a right to an abortion, the ruling is that because a woman has a right to privacy, the government cannot interfere with that right by making a law absent a compelling government interest. In Roe v. Wade the Texas law happened to be about abortion, it could have just as easily been about an apendectomy. Althought the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade spends a considerable amount of time discussing the history of abortion in dicta, the hingepin to the decision was the amazing finding that the Constitution provides a right of privacy. Without that amazing finding, and some questionable fancy footwork on standing in the case, the ruling must logically and necessarily go the other way.

 

[Basebuck]

I agree with you 69 and I think you just said it better than I did. My point was that the government could now be using this new bill to sidestep the findings on privacy that you stated above. Just pure speculation on my part. As I said above I have no idea what is going on in Washington.

 

[Buckeye69]

I believe that a Constitutional Amendment would pass in this country that grants the citizens a Right of Privacy. Forget about the abortion issue, but I think most Americans think they have a right to privacy, when they don't. Because of Roe v. Wade they do have a right of privacy when it comes to their own bodies. But I think a privacy amendment that includes everything else would be a good idea. Privacy here, is from government intrusion. For instance, Florida has a Right of Privacy from government intrusion into our private lives. States can give more rights than the US Constitution, they just cannot take away from the rights granted by the US Constitution.

 

[Basebuck]

The only issues I would argue here are the ones that consider a persons mind set during the decision making process. At what point do you consider a person stable enough to make a decision. If a person is in a traumatic position then others may need to look out for that person's well being. I do not have a position on the issue, I am just posing the question.

 

[Oh8ch]

I think the last couple of posts by 69 are the first I have seen that come close to addressing the central issue of most pro-choicers. It doesn't matter if 99% of Americans are opposed to abortion. The issue is whether that 99% has the right to impose its will on the 1% through legislative action.

There have been several threads recently about economics in which our conservative brethren have stated strongly their opposition to the shifting of income through taxation. I think it is reasonable to presume that these folks would take exception to their tax dollars being used to pay for prenatal care, special eduction programs for HS moms, and adoption procedures for a bunch of whores who can't keep their pants up (after all, couldn't this problem be solved if hormone driven teenagers just said no to the most fundamental urge known to mankind?).

The argument these folks make is that it is their hard earned cash and they should get to keep it. That the government should stay out of their lives. But from the names I have seen there seems to be a pretty good correlation between the 'stay out of my pocketbook' crowd and the anti-abortion crowd. So the real position seems to be that the government should limit its role in our lives to telling us when and where to beget children.

I was a little concerned with Woody1968s comment that there should not be an exception for rape or incest until he clarified that he 'sympathized' with their plight. It is comforting to know that when his 12 year old daugther is raped by a stranger he will be there to pat her hand while she brings the rapist's child to term.

But the truth is that woody is at least not being hypocritical in his stance. If a fetus is a life and abortion is murder than how do you impose the death penalty on the child of rape or incest? The answer is that this question is an incredibly difficult one to answer and should not be answered for indivicuals by their government simply because some portion of its citizens have drawn a presonal conclusion that abortion is murder.

What I see from the anti-abortion crowd is a lack of imagination and compassion. A failure to appreciate the human condition and the value of a life lived free. I can not say it better than the supreme court itself:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

 

[Nixon]

But from the names I have seen there seems to be a pretty good correlation between the 'stay out of my pocketbook' crowd and the anti-abortion crowd. So the real position seems to be that the government should limit its role in our lives to telling us when and where to beget children.

No, that's not how we(or at least I, as I can really only speak for myself) think. I believe that a fetus is a human being. One of the few good purposes that I see for government existing is to protect human beings from physical harm at the hands of other human beings. It has nothing to do with wanting to run the woman's life--it is about wanting to protect the life of the child. The most fundamental right is a right to life, without it, all others are literally useless. I believe that the fetus is a human being whose right to life is equal to mine. And so it is a very easy position to come to that the government has every buisness to protect that human from being killed by its mother just as much as the government can make it illegal for me to kill you.

 

[LightningRod]

One of the few good purposes that I see for government existing is to protect human beings from physical harm at the hands of other human beings.

Link #1: Stroll Through LA

Link #2: Stroll Through Maryland DC Suburbs

Link #3: Stroll Through DC

I could post much, much more of the same that touches only LA and DC, but I think these links drive home the point of what life is like for many youngsters throughout this country. Why is it that people in this country do not want to remove the logs from our own eyes before we remove th esplinters from the eyes of other nations? Why is it necessary to spend oodles of money in IRAQ to free the people in IRAQ when people in this country do not live in freedom? Is it because many of the youngsters who live in these areas were unfortunate in the gene pool lottery and the hell with them anyway - let them eat cake? What did the many innocent people in LA and DC do that we would rather waste US lives in IRAQ and ignore our own neighborhoods? Isn't this a pro-life issue? If we as a country are going to be pro-life, then we must be pro-life across the board. Is this what government should be doing - ridding our own neighborhoods of this shit? Or is it asking too much from the pocketbooks of others, but yet anti-abortion and "terrorist" paper tigers are somehow exceptions to the limited government rule?

 

[Nixon]

What's your point? We need welfare and other social programs to give these people? We need a "war on poverty"? Oh wait, we had one of those--things got worse. Or maybe ban guns so that law-abiding citizens will be at the mercy of gang thugs? I'm confused.

 

[buckiprof]

What I see from the anti-abortion crowd is a lack of imagination and compassion. A failure to appreciate the human condition and the value of a life lived free.

oh8ch - The Supreme Court quote (that you included) does say it very well but you too stated things very well! I couldn't agree more with your comment. It seems the compassion that the anti-abortion crowd has for the unborn ends once the baby is brought into the world.

 

[LightningRod]

What's your point? We need welfare and other social programs to give these people? We need a "war on poverty"? Oh wait, we had one of those--things got worse. Or maybe ban guns so that law-abiding citizens will be at the mercy of gang thugs? I'm confused.

So what's your point - from your lips to God's ears:

One of the few good purposes that I see for government existing is to protect human beings from physical harm at the hands of other human beings.

Was that a disingenuous statement? Oh, wait, the people who would actually be freed from tyranny in our own US neigborhoods don't quite match up to a standard that suits you. It's amazing that someday people will be cheering on Curtis Terry, but unless he can play football, who really gives a shit about him? Thank God for people like Coach Ginn who is working within the Cleveland Public School system (oh, what a shame, a government supported school - guess we need to close that down) to, as Coach Ginn states, "save lives." Right Nixon, let's go free th epeople of IRAQ because all the problems here in the US are taken care of. Kind of hurts to discuss all pro-life issues and not merely those from the fundamentalist far, far right.

 

[LightningRod]

oh8ch - The Supreme Court quote (that you included) does say it very well but you too stated things very well! I couldn't agree more with your comment. It seems the compassion that the anti-abortion crowd has for the unborn ends once the baby is brought into the world.

Once the baby comes into the world, let him or her eat cake in the eyes of the far, far right wing. How dare anybody suggest that society has some responsibility to see that the child who didn't have the luxury of choosing from teh gene pool actually be taken care of. Taking care of the child isn't a pro-life issue, it's a welfare issue because it allows teh far, far right wing fundamentalists to look down their noses while pontificating and yet hoard all that they believed they earned on their own.

 

[Buckeye69]

Once the baby comes into the world, let him or her eat cake in the eyes of the far, far right wing. How dare anybody suggest that society has some responsibility to see that the child who didn't have the luxury of choosing from teh gene pool actually be taken care of. Taking care of the child isn't a pro-life issue, it's a welfare issue because it allows teh far, far right wing fundamentalists to look down their noses while pontificating and yet hoard all that they believed they earned on their own.

:boohoo: :atom: :crazy:

 

[LightningRod]

...

 

[Buckeye69]

...

My, my. For someone so compassionate you sure tote a big stick.