politics: what i don't get... (rant) (Page 3)

2005-10-12 7:42 PM

in reply to: #264234

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

dontracy - 2005-10-12 4:27 PM

run4yrlif -

Ask a vegetarian if they will eat a fertilized egg. If they say no, ask them why not. You probably mean vegan. They won't eat a fertilized egg, because it's an animal product. They also won't drink milk. Is milk alive?

Bettylou

2005-10-12 7:45 PM

in reply to: #264000

Extreme Veteran

604

Northwest Ohio

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

In the middle of all this heavy logical chat, I'll throw this in.

One of the coolest things I've ever seen in my life was when I was 6 weeks pregnant and had a sonogram. Elijah was a centimeter long and resembled a kidney bean more than a human bean

, but you could see his heart beating. I was instantly in love.

And I saw a bumper sticker once that said, "The only people who are for abortion are people who have already been born."

So, yes, I lean more pro-life, but in my opinion, it's not a black and white issue. I don't want to revert back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days, either. A woman should have a choice. It just wouldn't be my personal choice.....

De Cracker

2005-10-12 7:53 PM

in reply to: #264000

Elite

2777

In my bunk with new shoes and purple sweats.

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Most modern day pharisees and their sheeplike flocks, led by the neocon right wing, believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. Would capital punishment be considered a very late term abortion? Modern day pharisees...struggling in the global marketplace.
BTW, the republicans own the Congress and the White House, majority of court, and governorships. Why is Roe v Wade still law? Could it be too useful to overturn?

misanthropic777

2005-10-12 8:23 PM

in reply to: #264234

Extreme Veteran

370

Mesa AZ

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

dontracy - 2005-10-12 2:27 PM

run4yrlif -

The"life begins at conception" argument is rooted in the religious doctrine

No, it's rooted in biology.

Animals begin life at conception.
It's true for dogs.
It's true for cats.
Its' true for humans.

The question here is not biological life, it's what many call personhood. When do we receive those inalienable rights that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration.

You can certainly make a religious arguement about it happening at conception, but that doesn't do much good in a pluralistic society.

You can make a much stronger philosophical arguement. That is something that can appeal to people of divergent religious beliefs.

Actually...

Your arguement, that personhood must begin after conception, is itself a religious arguement. You're saying that at some magical moment we suddenly posses inalienable rights. Well, where is that moment exactly? Can you measure it? Can you record it? How are you sure it is there, besides your faith that it is?

The magical moment is the moment at which the fetus can survive (either naturally or through extensive medical assistance) outside my body. Frankly, until then, it is no different then a cancer. Its cells are splitting and it is growing but it is dependent on me for its "life" at the most basic level. If I die, the cancer (and the fetus) dies with me. An already born child does not.

phoenixazul

2005-10-12 9:38 PM

in reply to: #264318

Pro

4189

Pittsburgh, my heart is in Glasgow

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Bettylou - 2005-10-12 8:45 PM

don't want to revert back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days, either. A woman should have a choice. It just wouldn't be my personal choice.....

EXACTLY. Taking away that choice is going to lead to nothing but bad things for both children and their mothers. It's not the choice I personally would make if it was my decision, but I can't (and shouldn't) legislate that to anyone else.

(sorry, had to throw this out there, this has no reference to the conversation at hand...anyone else feel that the people who get to have the most say in women's health care are majority male? Am I the only one who is upset about this?)

Brock Samson

2005-10-13 7:59 AM

in reply to: #264000

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

How we got into a debate about abortion, choice and when life begins is beyond me... but I'll suggest this... How many of you have actually read the decision of Roe v. Wade? And even more important to understanding that decision, how many of you have read the decisions coming before Roe v. Wade dealing with privacy issues and the Constititutional concept of the "penumbra of Constitutional rights" upon which the Roe decision ultimately hinges?

A lot of the discusion about this issue is interesting on a philosophical level, but isn't really the issue if we are truely talking about Roe v. Wade, or an activist judiciary. Whether you agree with Roe or not (I will not say what my opinion is one way or the other because it is not germain to my point), the decision ultimately relies on privacy issues. Thus those that attempt to attack the decision have to get around those privacy issues and attempt to attack the decision based upon some over riding compelling governmental interest.

Interestingly enough there are those that argue that the creation of the penumbra of rights, and the extention of privacy rights to this issue was judicial legislation. That's why those that are in favor of Roe have to be careful about arguing against an activist Court that legistlates rather than interprets, because it may be arguing against issue they hold dear.

the bear

2005-10-13 9:10 AM

in reply to: #264000

Resident Curmudgeon

25290

The Road Back

Gold member

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Roe vs. Wade?

Aren't those the options that New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin gave his citizens for evacuating the city after the hurricane?

2005-10-13 9:12 AM

in reply to: #264476

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Well, this is..was...still is a thread about the Supreme Court. And it's widely thought that R v. W is the central issue before the Court today, so it's not a big leap that we're talking abortion, is it?

ASA22 - 2005-10-13 7:59 AMHow we got into a debate about abortion, choice and when life begins is beyond me...

Brock Samson

2005-10-13 9:44 AM

in reply to: #264553

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

run4yrlif - 2005-10-13 9:12 AM

Well, this is..was...still is a thread about the Supreme Court. And it's widely thought that R v. W is the central issue before the Court today, so it's not a big leap that we're talking abortion, is it?

ASA22 - 2005-10-13 7:59 AMHow we got into a debate about abortion, choice and when life begins is beyond me...

I agree that to many Americans, and politicians Roe v. Wade is an issue of defining importance to both the Court as a whole, and an individual nominee. (I disagree that its the CENTRAL issue facing the Court, there are other issues that will have a greater impact on American life than this issue, in the long term)

My point was that arguing against an active Court that is engaged in Judicial legislation may be contrary to arguing in favor of a justice that will uphold Roe v. Wade. Whether the decision of Roe v. Wade is right, wrong, indifferent, or Good, Bad, or Ugly, there are some things that are certain 1) it was an act of an active court engaged in judicial legislation, and 2) as the decision was a 5-4 decision, it is suseptible to change.

Upon editing: Anyone interested in this issue NEEDS to actually read Roe v. Wade, and the decisions regarding the pneumbra of rights and privacy rights, to understand what went on when Roe v. Wade was decided.

Edited by ASA22 2005-10-13 9:46 AM

2005-10-13 9:54 AM

in reply to: #264550

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

the bear - 2005-10-13 9:10 AM

Roe vs. Wade?

Aren't those the options that New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin gave his citizens for evacuating the city after the hurricane?

Hyuck, hyuck, hyuck!!!

dontracy

2005-10-13 10:53 AM

in reply to: #264476

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

ASA22 - How we got into a debate about abortion, choice and when life begins is beyond me... but I'll suggest this... How many of you have actually read the decision of Roe v. Wade? And even more important to understanding that decision, how many of you have read the decisions coming before Roe v. Wade dealing with privacy issues and the Constititutional concept of the "penumbra of Constitutional rights" upon which the Roe decision ultimately hinges?

OK, I'm not a lawyer and I get bogged down in the technical language, but this is what pops out at me from reading Justice Blackmun's opinion of the Court in Roe v. Wade

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.

So to me, this seems to mean that the Court never intended for Roe to mean that a mother has the right to abortion on demand throughout her pregnancy.

It seems to be saying that the court recognizes the state's right to protect potential life in certain circumstances.

The Court disagreed with the assertion that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.

In other words, Roe does not seem to say that it is solely a woman's choice.

From Justice Blackmun's summary:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Well, how to you get from (a), to demands for an over the counter morning after pill? Where is the attending physician in that case?

And (c) seems to say that the state retains the right to prohibit abortion after the point of viability. So why the outcry against the ban on partial birth abortions?

I've read that there are some private notes of Justice Blackmun's that have just been published. Apparently, he was dismayed that Roe was being used to argue for abortion on demand, saying that Roe was never intended for that. Need to go find that.

2005-10-13 11:02 AM

in reply to: #264644

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

dontracy - 2005-10-13 10:53 AM

So to me, this seems to mean that the Court never intended for Roe to mean that a mother has the right to abortion on demand throughout her pregnancy. You're right...AFAIK, you can't get an abortion at 32 weeks (although I know some people that would like to get one at around 800 weeks).

It seems to be saying that the court recognizes the state's right to protect potential life in certain circumstances. Like third-trimester abortions. I personally like the viability standard. It areound, what 24 weeks now?

The Court disagreed with the assertion that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses.

In other words, Roe does not seem to say that it is solely a woman's choice. True.

From Justice Blackmun's summary:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Well, how to you get from (a), to demands for an over the counter morning after pill? Where is the attending physician in that case? Is RU-486 available without a prescription?

And (c) seems to say that the state retains the right to prohibit abortion after the point of viability. So why the outcry against the ban on partial birth abortions? Because it infringes on the right to choose. Are partial birth abortions preformed on viable fetuses? (I'm asking...I don't know).

Chippy

2005-10-13 11:08 AM

in reply to: #264654

Master

2052

Colorado

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Is RU-486 available without a prescription?

No, it isn't. But that is not the same thing as the morning-after pill... .which is also not available over the counter. Shit, in some places, you can even get you BC from your pharmacist. But that's a different discussion.

I would think all of those things (birth control, emergency birth control, etc) are heavily wrapped into the abortion debate, as it seems logical that if a woman has access to birth control, then she is much less likely to get pregnant, and possibly need/want an abortion.

2005-10-13 11:19 AM

in reply to: #264660

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

ChipmunkHeart - 2005-10-13 11:08 AM

Yeah, you'd think. It's funny that the same people that want to deny choice are the same people (more or less...I hate generalizations) that want to deny access to birth control, or even educate you that it exists.

dontracy

2005-10-13 11:54 AM

in reply to: #264665

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Well, I guess one important question, maybe the important question, is whether or not Roe was a sound decision apart from it being about abortion and apart from how you feel about abortion.

Do you think it was a good SCOTUS decision?

ASA22?
Other lawyers?
Everybody else?

This is from Justice Rehnquist's dissent on Roe:

If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulationof consensual transactions may be a form of "liberty"protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty,"against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in theBill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due processof law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamsonv. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). The Due ProcessClause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that sucha statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

Is Roe a case of judicial legislation?

Perhaps this question brings the thread back to Renee's first point

Renee - The Justices should be loyal to the Constitution, first, foremost, and always.

Edited by dontracy 2005-10-13 12:00 PM

2005-10-13 12:04 PM

in reply to: #264680

Giver

18427

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

dontracy - 2005-10-13 11:54 AM

Is Roe a case of judicial legislation?

I'm going to ask a stupid question: what's so wrong with what you're calling judicial legislation, if it's appropriately applied? Isn't it just that the court is setting precedent? Why shouldn't the court have the freedom to, in the context of the cases presented before it, determine if standing laws are constitutional or not? I'm just curious...

2005-10-13 12:22 PM

in reply to: #264688

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

The politicians who complain about judicial legislation are often guilty of legislative judiciating. They seek to usurp the independence of the Courts with their bombastic noise making. They're just playing to their base, full of sound and fury.

There are times when strict adherance to constructionism makes for very bad judiciary outcomes, e.g. Scott v Sanford wherein the SCOTUS states that "Scott should remain a slave, that as a slave he is not a citizen of the U.S. and thus not eligible to bring suit in a federal court, and that as a slave he is personal property and thus has never been free."

Strict constructionism ain't all that.

kimj81

2005-10-13 12:25 PM

in reply to: #264118

Pro

5153

Helena, MT

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Renee - 2005-10-12 11:48 AM

Good points, Michele. The Texas Republican Party makes no secret of the fact that they consider separation of church and state to be a "myth." (it's listed in their party platform on their website). They want to refashion our government into a theocracy and flush our Jeffersonian Democracy down the toilet. They're revolutionaries of the worst sort - religious revolutionaries.

OK, I haven't read all of this, and I'm off the topic mostly... but when the hell did republicans stop being Republicans and start being religious crusaders? I think (well, I know from several personal conversations) that it would be very frustrating to be a non-religious conservative right now.

Brock Samson

2005-10-13 1:30 PM

in reply to: #264680

Elite

2733

Venture Industries,

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Don: Interesting question,whether Roe is a "good" or "correct" or "sound" decision. In all honesty, I don't know. First, I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer, I'm a prosecutor. My Constituitional strenghts lie in Criminal Procedure matters, so just because I'm a lawyer doesn't make me an expert in this area. I say that so there it is clear that I'm not trying to say my view is the right one on this issue. Every time I read Roe and the cases that came before it my destinct impression was that the Justices came to thier decision first and reasoned backwards to support their decision. That is, they favored a particular outcome for whatever reason, moral, philisophical, and then they figured out a reason to legally justify that outcome. It certainly was an "original" decision. And controversial from the get go, even amoung the Court.

Renee and Don point to an interesting question about the role of the Supreme Court in general, in essence they ask is there anything wrong with this? My personal belief is that as long as the decision, any decsion, is based upon sound legal reasoning the decsion is justified. I also believe that the U.S. Supreme Court gets it right more often then it doesn't. The problem I see tends to be with the state supreme courts, and Federal appelate courts.

Going back to something Renee said in the very beginning about those who appointed the current justices bitching about their "liberal" views, that statement actually gives me a warm feeling in my heart, because it shows that the system works. That there is an independent judiciary. That someone like O'Connor, who was supposed to be a conservative has voted the way she feels compelled to vote on issues based on how she views the law. (Sandy actually is a conservative if you take the entire history of her work on the Court as a whole.) Justices once appointed seem to be seldom swayed by a feeling of indebtedness to the president or party under which they were appointed. And that is a VERYgood thing.

Edited by ASA22 2005-10-13 1:31 PM

2005-10-13 1:58 PM

in reply to: #264751

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

ASA22 - 2005-10-13 1:30 PM

Going back to something Renee said in the very beginning about those who appointed the current justices bitching about their "liberal" views, that statement actually gives me a warm feeling in my heart, because it shows that the system works.

And that's why I'm not setting my hair on fire over this Miers thing. The Prez can have all the conviction in the world that she will do his bidding (and what a tasteless, unAmerican sentiment for a POTUS to express) on the Court but the fact is Ms. Miers will have her own conscience to answer to as she begins her work on SCOTUS. The press is forever talking about POTUS' legacy. Well, SC Justices have their own legacy to protect and playing the presidential puppet is not a legacy I think any Justice wants to have.

drewb8

2005-10-13 2:42 PM

in reply to: #264000

Master

4101

Denver

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Its only legoslating from the bench when the decision is not what the politician wants. When the decision is what the politician hopes for it is a wise and learned judgement.

I'm surely not an expert on the SCOTUS or its workings in general, but is there some kind of correlation with shifting views vs. strict constructionism? Seems like a self-described strict constructionist (ie. Scalia/Thomas) has little wiggle room for changing their views without risking hypocrisy whereas someone who is more open to the idea of the constitution as a living document can reasonably become more liberal/conservative as their views evolve.

dontracy

2005-10-13 2:49 PM

in reply to: #264809

Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

ASA22 - Every time I read Roe and the cases that came before it my destinct impression was that the Justices came to thier decision first and reasoned backwards to support their decision. That is, they favored a particular outcome for whatever reason, moral, philisophical, and then they figured out a reason to legally justify that outcome. It certainly was an "original" decision. And controversial from the get go, even amoung the Court.

So what do you think Roe's strengths are and what are its weaknesess?

If it's challenged, what shape do you think the challenge may take?

Where is it vulnerable and where is it solid?

2005-10-13 2:54 PM

in reply to: #264813

Buttercup

14334

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

Drew,

This article on MSNBC might help you (re: evolving views) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9547151/

To the question “does a person become any different once he puts on a judge’s black robes?” Justice Felix Frankfurter answered, “If he is any good, he does.”

tech_geezer

2005-10-13 3:16 PM

in reply to: #264000

Elite

4344

Subject: RE: politics: what i don't get... (rant)

There is a very good account of the process of coming to a decision on Roe v Wade in The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong. Harry Blackmun, the author of the Roe v Wade opinion, was initially opposed to abortion but in studying the issue thoroughly he became convinced that a mother's rights to control her body outweighed the fetus's rights. He was the swing vote and it was a difficult decision for him. In the year's that followed, Blackmun became more and more convinced of the decision and staunchly defended it.

At this point, it is established law. The factual basis for the decision has not changed. The advance of society has not made it obsolete. Society is probably better off with legal abortion than with illegal abortion. Very likely the decision will stand.