Jump to content

don't let anti-choice extremists win the fight


Recommended Posts

Don't Let Anti-Choice Extremists Win the Fight for the Supreme Court For the first time in over a decade, there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Unless we act quickly and forcefully, the Bush administration will make sure it's filled by a right-wing activist bent on ending a woman's right to choose.Send a message to your U.S. senators right now urging them to block the nomination of a right wing conservative supreme court judicial nominee who will overturn Roe v. Wade

Link to post
Share on other sites

Justices are appointed based on their qualifications, not their political ideologies.If the President or Congress precluded appointees based solely on ideology, and not qualifications like it ought to be, (and is, nominally) then Bader-Ginsberg and Day-O'Conner wouldn't have stood a prayer in hell of getting on the bench. Neither would have Scalia, for that matter.Bush has said since 2000 that if given the choice, he'd appoint strict constitutionalist conservative judges. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that... and apparently neither do the voters time and again in Presidential and Congressional elections.If the democrats in the House and Senate start their whiny little bitch filibusters AGAIN... then the chasm between "The Democratic Party" and "The rest of Middle American Voters" will only grow wider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But its a life thing to me. Not a choice. So we will never agree.
Why can't more people figure this out?
because more people are not right wing conservative fundamentalist christians who feel they have to push the word of Christ down everybody's throat to be saved. It is a privacy issue. The constitution guarantees it. The government can't tell a woman what to do with her body.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Justices are appointed based on their qualifications, not their political ideologies.If the President or Congress precluded appointees based solely on ideology, and not qualifications like it ought to be, (and is, nominally) then Bader-Ginsberg and Day-O'Conner wouldn't have stood a prayer in hell of getting on the bench. Neither would have Scalia, for that matter.Bush has said since 2000 that if given the choice, he'd appoint strict constitutionalist conservative judges. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that... and apparently neither do the voters time and again in Presidential and Congressional elections.If the democrats in the House and Senate start their whiny little bitch filibusters AGAIN... then the chasm between "The Democratic Party" and "The rest of Middle American Voters" will only grow wider.
when the phrase ‘strict constructionist' is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying that Bush would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Justices are appointed based on their qualifications, not their political ideologies.
What a joke. OK, Karl Rove, what other lies can you tell the American people.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But its a life thing to me. Not a choice. So we will never agree.
Why can't more people figure this out?
because more people are not right wing conservative fundamentalist christians who feel they have to push the word of Christ down everybody's throat to be saved. It is a privacy issue. The constitution guarantees it. The government can't tell a woman what to do with her body.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, nutjob. My point is that a solution will never be reached because one group thinks life starts at conception and the other group doesn't.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But its a life thing to me. Not a choice. So we will never agree.
Why can't more people figure this out?
because more people are not right wing conservative fundamentalist christians who feel they have to push the word of Christ down everybody's throat to be saved. It is a privacy issue. The constitution guarantees it. The government can't tell a woman what to do with her body.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, nutjob. My point is that a solution will never be reached because one group thinks life starts at conception and the other group doesn't.
OK. Another way to read it is "Why can't more people figure this out that it is life thing and not a choice thing."
Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost the election bro, you had your chance last november to get your way but America has spoken and they voted for a Republican President and a Republican congress and theres not a thing in the world you can do about it but bitch about it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, the point you all miss is that Pro Life people don't see it as just as a woman's body. But it's the body of a woman with another human life inside. You act like she's getting a boob job.May I ask why you are such an advocate for this?Do you really care about a woman's right to have an abortion?Isn't this more about a liberal anti/Christian right post?and you use abortion as a fake rally point?1.5 MM lives, fetuses, humans, (pick a term) are killed, eliminated,exterminated,removed, (pick a term) each year.I could expect apathy, but zealous support for this makes such little sense to me. What is yuor true agenda as it relates to Pro Abortion?Is it safe to assume you value the life of a baby seal more than an unborn child? Or say, should I have the right (choice) to kill your dog?

Link to post
Share on other sites
But its a life thing to me. Not a choice. So we will never agree.
Why can't more people figure this out?
because more people are not right wing conservative fundamentalist christians who feel they have to push the word of Christ down everybody's throat to be saved. It is a privacy issue. The constitution guarantees it. The government can't tell a woman what to do with her body.
yea...blame jesus. god knows he hates you.- Jordan
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the "abortion issue" is the most dishonest debate in recent political memory.Do you know WHY Republicans hate Roe v. Wade? Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with baby's lives. When The Greatest Supreme Court Justice in Modern History took the bench, he made a decision. He decided that Americans had a de facto right to privacy, and- being the one man in the world that could ensure this right for years and years to come- he wrote some decisions that ensured Americans that right. He worded decisions so that things like the right to prophylactic use among unmarried couples was rooted in a RIGHT TO PRIVACY.This is still the problems conservatives have with Roe v. Wade. They have had something stuck in their craw since the Supreme Court "invented" this right to privacy, and it incences them to no end. What do you think Bush is REALLY talking about when he rambles on and on about "Activist Judges?"Abortion is a touchy subject, and treating the debate with respect is difficult when people start shouting to be heard, but people should at least understand where their political leaders are REALLY coming from.Ice

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff, the point you all miss is that Pro Life people don't see it as just as a woman's body.  But it's the body of a woman with another human life inside.  You act like she's getting a boob job.May I ask why you are such an advocate for this?Do you really care about a woman's right to have an abortion?Isn't this more about a liberal anti/Christian right post?and you use abortion as a fake rally point?1.5 MM lives, fetuses, humans, (pick a term) are killed, eliminated,exterminated,removed, (pick a term) each year.I could expect apathy, but zealous support for this makes such little sense to me.  What is yuor true agenda as it relates to Pro Abortion?Is it safe to assume you value the life of a baby seal more than an unborn child?  Or say, should I have the right (choice) to kill your dog?
I do get that point. I do not agree with any kind of fundamentalism, be it Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. Fundamentalists are not content with living their lives, they want to force their way of life onto others. At the heart of the issue I am not in favor of abortion. I am pro-choice. I do not think that abortion should be legislated. I am in support of freedom and less government. I'm not sure where life starts, I just know that until it comes out of the womb, the government can't tell me what to do.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree.Top Causes of Death in USNumber of Deaths Per Year  Abortion: 1,500,000 - NPR, March 18, 2002  Heart Disease: 696,947 - CDC, 2002  Cancer (Malignant neoplasms): 557,271 - CDC, 2002  http://www.ballew.org/deathsum.htmlBut its a life thing to me.  Not a choice.  So we will never agree.http://members.aol.com/Poesgirl/deaths.htm
ARRRRRRRRRGGGHHH. How come the only ones with the problem of when a human life begins are pro-lifers. Scientists are not clamoring for fetuses to be seen as a living human being, only people with an education that usually stops around the time their sister gets pregnant by their uncle. The higher the education of an individual, the more likely they are to be pro-choice. Could this possibly be a hint
Link to post
Share on other sites

the terminology is confusing. I am pro life. Certainly I am in favor of life. I am not pro death or pro murder. But I am also pro freedom. Pro the US Constitution. Pro the fundamentals that this country was founded on.There is no way that it can be appropriate for the government to mandate what a person can do with their body. If you are against abortion for moral reasons, don't get one. But you cannot insert your fundamentalist religious beliefs into the fabric of our society to shape our laws. I will do everything in my power to stop you. I feel that I am at war with the Evangelical Christian Right that is trying to take my country away from me. We fundamentally disagree with what America should be. These Evangelical Christians want to turn the US into a theological state with prayer in school, the ten commandments everywhere, and abortion illegal. I will not let you turn this country into something that is contrary to the very basic beliefs that it was founded on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will not let you turn this country into something that is contrary to the very basic beliefs that it was founded on.
Let's get a few things straight... I am vehemently pro-choice.But what, exactly, is the fundamental principle that abortion legislation violates?We are guaranteed certain freedoms by our Bill of Rights and Constitution, but which ones would "abortion legislation" violate? Ice
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily disagree with the list you are fighting (but I may, but that's not the point of this post)When you say the fundamentalist are turning this country....and against what it was founded on....etc...Didn't we have prayer in schools, Ten Commandments everywhere, and abortion was illegal back in 1776 ?I'm really asking. I don't know. Although I suspect that it was.You want us to head towards a more secular society. But to say we are more fundamentlist leaning than we were in the beginning may be a stretch, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You want us to head towards a more secular society. But to say we are more fundamentlist leaning than we were in the beginning may be a stretch, no?
Yeah, the people that FOUNDED this country were religious nut-jobs n' shit. We are swinging towards religious stupidity in the last 10ish years, though, and 9/11 was all the excuse some overzealous zealots needed. Bill Frist might actually be the dumbest man on the planet. I would like to put him in a persistent vegatative state.Idaho is a persistant vegitative state.I should be stabbed in the heart.Ice
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice:the argument is that the Constitutution does not "Guarantee the Right to Privacy" nor the right to Marriage, nor the Right to own a dog...etc.but by not denying the right to Abortions...essentially allows for them.The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.Amendment IX:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment X:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.to me..though...the fetus is a living human and thus protected under our laws. But this is the relavant right to privacy articales in the bill of rights.http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a fetus is a living human. But because it is inside another human, that "host" human has the right to do what she wants to her body.However, I do not think that that person has the right to smoke, do drugs, and anything else that would harm the baby if she intends to keep it. Because then they are harming it and still want it to live. However, if they do not intend to keep it, then they have the right to do what they want. A fine line I agree, but that is just how I feel. Not to different than saying you are pro life and pro the death penalty. Or the nut who said it was OK to use deadly force to stop abortions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actuary:Yes, I understand completely. I spent a lot of time studying all of this, including the Libertarian (Harry Bizzle) perspective.Personally, I find myself siding with Libertarians more often than I feel comfortable, especially on certain philosophical Constitutional issues.This all stems from Griswold v. Connecticut, where the court decided married couples have a right to use contraception, and, as such, an EXPLICIT right to privacy was founded and extended to the states. It was a judicial masterstroke, and conservatives have been quietly (or, in "Senator" Santorum's case, not so quietly) fuming for decades. Conservatives always claim to be the party of "smaller government," but they think the court's reading of a Right to Privacy from the US Constitution was the greatest judicial mistake since segregation. This is an issue I enjoy debating because people are often so confused as to the REAL issue most people on the hill are arguing when abortion comes up. You'll notice that conservatives have no problem executing US citizens, even when they understand the occassional innocent will be put to death. This is not a "sanctity of life" argument, people... at least not when it comes from the mouth of the person you elected. Besides, the Court doesn't have it in them to reverse Roe v. Wade just yet. Maybe in a generation or two. This is the "uber-conservative" court that recently reverse sodomy-restriction laws (see: Bowers v. Hardwick).Trust me... the debate will rage on for a long long timeIce

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...