Supreme Court Justice - Abortion

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:30 am

Should Bush select a new supreme court justice based on an absolute basis on their percieved opinion on Abortion.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 am

honestly - my observation is that one minute A.G. gonzoles is being ripped for possibly authorizing torture memmos and now that he might be nominated to join the lib's 9 headed god, as rush puts it, he is as innocent as the morning dew.....not that the other side is innocent on this...he must have the right point of view for kennedy not to go into a drunken rage on his potential nomination

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:09 pm

Maybe it's possible that some people are critical of people when they screw up, regardless of their overall opinion of their views or political affiliation. I know the cynics think that all criticism is solely due to one being in an opposite political party (and your Rush reference is perfect, because he is the perfect example of one who defends indefensible behavior by Republicans and blasts all things Democrat without any concern for just judging people's actions as people as opposed to Dems or Reps).

It's completely consistent for someone to think that Gonzales would be fine as an objective judge, yet take serious exception to his torture memo. In the real world (the one where everyone isn't just a blindly partisan pawn), that's how it should work.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:16 pm

Is Gonzolez a Bobcat? I can't figure out why this thread is in this category.

Abortion shouldn't have anything to do with the selection...but it will.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:07 pm

Good point -- moved from the connections board to the hangout board.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:52 pm

abortion will always be an issue, as the President courts the various churches in this country. I find it arrogant to put a man in charge of such a personal choice for a WOMAN. I hope the individual selected understands that (if male) they do not have the resources (personal experiences) to weigh in on this issue. It wont be the case, but many woman who would turn to abortion do so not because they wnat to kill the baby, but are desperate. to allow Rowe Vs. Wade to stand would allow it as a safe alternative, to backyard butchers. if a woman is so desperate to end a pregnancy, when there are so many people wanting to adopt she will find someone to do it for her. Best to keep it safe and regulated.

I hope that overall wisdom and strict guidelines are used by the person selected
-rebecca

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:39 pm

briannell wrote:abortion will always be an issue, as the President courts the various churches in this country. I find it arrogant to put a man in charge of such a personal choice for a WOMAN. I hope the individual selected understands that (if male) they do not have the resources (personal experiences) to weigh in on this issue.

But I thought it "takes two to tango?"

"Personal experiences"? I doubt the women that are most adamant about the "right" of abortion have the "personal experiences" to "weigh in" on the issue. Even "Jane Roe" herself now wishes she hadn't aborted her child.

To the contrary of what we're led to believe, this issue is about the "right" to do anything we as humans want, regardless of how affects other living beings, or how it may affect us in the long term. It's as if the attitude is one of "It's all about me, and I don't really care who it affects, or how, or why."

How else can one explain the 90+% of women deciding against abortion when they see the ultrasound of their baby? Why else would NARAL and Planned Parenthood be so adamantly against the use of ultrasound in abortion "clinics"?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:09 pm

It does take "two to tango," but fortunately we guys aren't the ones who have to have the kids. That's generally why people defer to the women in making these kinds of decisions. If we bore the risk and burden of carrying the child and then giving birth, then we'd probably have a more compelling argument to impose our will on such a decision. I guess the simple answer is that if a guy is opposed to abortion, he shouldn't have sex. Here is thereby imposing his will in terms of preventing abortions relating to his own tango.

I also have to assume that "the women that are most adamant about..." abortion ALL have way more insight and personal experience to weigh in on the issue that relates exclusively to the female body than either of us. It seems quite difficult for any guy to question that level of experience of any woman seeing as we, by definition, have zero insight on that topic.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:17 am

This is obviously a very emothional issue. But important??? I don't think so. With all of the problems we have here at home and world wide this would not even make the top 100 list.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:38 am

BAC wrote:It does take "two to tango," but fortunately we guys aren't the ones who have to have the kids.

But we (guys) have half the genetic responsibility for that life. Would you euthanize a dog without your wife's concurrence? I think not, but we're treating the dog with more respect than a human being.

BAC wrote:I guess the simple answer is that if a guy is opposed to abortion, he shouldn't have sex. Here is thereby imposing his will in terms of preventing abortions relating to his own tango.

I'm opposed to it (surprise, surprise...

), but if I didn't have sex, how exactly did my daughters come about?

BAC wrote:It seems quite difficult for any guy to question that level of experience of any woman seeing as we, by definition, have zero insight on that topic.

I'm not a thief, but I know stealing is wrong.

Again, the issue boils down to our collective desire to decide things for our selfish selves, the consequences and effects on others around us--as well as the long-term effects on us personally--considered as not important when compared to immediate gratification.

GTapp wrote:This is obviously a very emothional issue. But important??? I don't think so. With all of the problems we have here at home and world wide this would not even make the top 100 list.

To some, that may be true. To me, it is an issue indicative of our society's moral atrophy.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:15 am

as a woman I don't think ANY man has the right to tell me what I can or can not do with or to my body. On the issue of abortion I know that in the 8 girls i knew at MSU that had them (one twice with the same man) all were done out of a sense of desperation. scared to lose the guy, tell the parents, or lose their scholarship. I'd rather it be kept safe and regulated.

-on a personal note, I'm crazy about kids, BUT my pregnancies were unplanned. Birth control is not 100%, I was happy to be pregnant, hubby not exactly ready. still now i'd love to have more, but hubby doesn't want them, so if I got pregnant it would be a strain. I've known married couples that chose abortion because a baby "interfered" with their chosen profession. he wasn't ready. she didn't want to side track herself. or they were already a "full" family and oops happened. just because you correctly use protection and are nursing doesn't mean you can't get pregnant. not being able to meet financial burden is another reason why a married couple may make that choice. when you are a single mom, there are many factors that may drive you to an abortion, but it's a womans choice.

as "two to tango" is now irrelevant in a society where sex is as disposable as your partner. most pregnancies that end in abortion aren't between "committed" couples, but between casual sex partners. Most men do not discuss the issue even with girlfriends, I doubt you bring it up with the woman you just met, but screw anyway. people don't think about it. we are a disposable, instant gratification society, and until that changes it's best to keep options open and safe.

I just hope that the person elected takes it into consideration that if by chance they are a male they do not have the knowledge to judge a womans physical and emotional needs, they are humble not arrogant.

on the ultrasound issue, i think if you love children you fall in love with that child prior to that point, which is ususally between 18-22 weeks. if you fear the child the ultrasound wont make that much difference.

-rebecca

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:58 am

So explain to me why we (as society) still have premarital sex?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:12 am

Oh man, I am SO sorry. I was trying to do a reply thing to your post with the quote button, but I must have hit the edit button instead. I accidentally edited your post down to nothing, and I can't repost what was originally there. Your post had a lot of quotes in it, so I know it was a real pain.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry... I promise I will be much more careful in the future (and I won't try to post while multi-tasking).

If you by any chance did that post in another program and then posted it, that would save me a lot of guilt if you could repost it. Otherwise, all I can say is that I'm really sorry.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:01 pm

briannell wrote: I find it arrogant to put a man in charge of such a personal choice for a WOMAN. I hope the individual selected understands that (if male) they do not have the resources (personal experiences) to weigh in on this issue.

The issue is is a fetus a person or a lump. If it is a person from conception, as those in the pro-life camp believe, then why is it arrogant for a man or anyone else to say you don't have right to kill your children? every argument you can make to support why abortions are positive (financial, stress, etc) are as true for a 1 month old as they are for a fetus that hasn't been born yet, but we all agree that you can't kill your 1 month old.

I personally don't understand the argument that the fetus isn't a person yet - is there a chance that cells from the fetus could split and become another arm or cancer or something other than a human? Is it because it isn't fully developed? Couldn't this argument then be used to kill any child that hasn't reached puberty? I guess I don't get it, and for me it has nothing to do with religion, I just can't make the leap of faith to say that fetus isn't a human.

I'm not saying it isn't a tough and emotionally wrenching situation, but if you believe that it is a human and not a lump of cells I don't see how ultimately you could support abortion on demand.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:06 pm

Extending the argument of "what could this group of cells eventually turn into," doesn't that also make masturbation or nocturnal emissions (or menstruation, for that matter) a form of self-genocide?

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:09 pm

Just look at it as Passive Eugenics!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:12 pm

gtapp wrote:Just look at it as Passive Eugenics!

For me, that's certainly the case. Nobody wants this genetic material passed on to some poor kid!

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:23 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Extending the argument of "what could this group of cells eventually turn into," doesn't that also make masturbation or nocturnal emissions (or menstruation, for that matter) a form of self-genocide?

How so? Unless i totally misunderstood biology the sperm has to penetrate the egg, develop into a zygote and attach itself to the womb of the uterus before it can become a fetus.

To clarify my position, to me this is when life begins, because now the cells are changing as the human evolves. Until this point it is a potential life, but not life - whether you keep the sperm in your body or spray it on your sheets makes no difference.

Also note that I have no problem with the morning after pill because as I said until the zygote attaches itself to the uterus the new life has not yet started.

I also support legislation that required health care plans to cover contraceptive pills, including the morning after pill in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies (if health insurance plans can cover Viagra surely birth control is a much more of a necessity).

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:36 pm

It's all just a matter of where you draw the line. Sperm is alive -- is it "life?" Who knows? Or is something not really "life" until it can survive independent of its host? Who knows? Or is it when egg and sperm combine? Who knows? The embryo starts to replicate cells -- is that life? If we go by that definition, isn't cancer also life? I know that's a vulgar comparison, but I'm just showing that defining life is very difficult and is exclusively a matter of personal belief as opposed to something more rock-solid (which is what makes this such a difficult issue).

I don't know the answers to those questions, so I base my position on a civil liberties position (less government invention in the private lives of people to the extent they aren't interfering with other people's -- fully developed and independently functioning beings -- happiness/rights) as well as from a sociological perspective.

I don't like the idea of people having kids that don't want them or are incapable of taking care of them (and before we hit the reflex adoption debate, tell me how many people are lining up to take FAS or crack babies?). Once we get past a point of worrying whether it is murder or not (I don't think it is, some people do, and I can see their point of view, but I oppose forcing that view on all of society via law), it makes sense to me that our country is much better off by avoiding the births of children who will not be raised in a good environment of under less-than-desired conditions. Abortions (free will of the people having kids) allow that. There have also been compelling studies showing the positive effects of pro-choice laws in terms of our crime rates (and probably also welfare rolls and other social ills) as a result of our ability to more carefully plan pregnancies. It makes sense on an anecdotal level, at least.

http://www.guardster.com/print.php?sid=217

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:17 pm

BAC - looks like you started a sperm war

Don't need to picture what do in ur bed

I do think the morning after pill should be readily available to women, but as a society I think we need to act responsibly about our sexual behaviors. Personally, I think a baby deserves the chance to be born, BUT think men and WOMEN need to be careful whom they bed down.

Guess I was raised old fashioned, don't sleep with anyone you don't want to have a family with. Most guys i met got that about me, and knew if I wasn't asking them these questions:
"what do you think of children?",
" how many would you like to have?",
"what timeframe would you want to start a family?"
, and " how do you get along within your own family, with regards to parents and siblings?" they were SOL.

Basically, they weren't making the list of potential mates/husbands so therefore NO SEX. Any man I posed those questions to knew he was being sized up for fatherhood, and if he wasn't interested in it, he needed to keep his sperm to himself. (or run far far away, because I wanted his kids)

this is not the norm these days, doubt I will ever qualify as normal, but at least I don't have to DNA test my kids to find out whose daddy. For those of you who choose to have casual sex, just try and breakdown the costs of raising one child, and think would you REALLY like to deal with that woman for at least the next 18 years of your life.

May be abortion isn't a viable choice for you personally, at least you should not impose your will on someone else. The mothers have to live with what they do, and the scars are lifelong. for those taking a religious stance remember, religious arrogance is the worse kind. God never told you to approve of everyone's beliefs, choices, or actions but he did command you to love everyone. don't be boastful have a teachable spirit. read Eph. 4: 29-5 to learn about gentleness and may be you wont look with distain on another person you are in no position to judge.

-sorry off topic -

still hope for wise & sound judgement by anyone Bush selects.

-rebecca