This would make abortions illegal in New York, I for one think that it's a persons right to choose birth or not. Just wondering what everyone else was thinking on this.
Huh? Why would anything Bush was trying to get done only affect NY? Can you provide a link to a story please?
Every pro-life person is seeking to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Where the fawk have you been?
The President can't do anything about it though.
The President can't do anything about it though.
he can appoint judges that will vote how he likes =p
QFTchitlin wrote:
he can appoint judges that will vote how he likes =p
wasn't the supreme court supposed to choose if a law was fair or not, not be another senate or house of reps?
Edit, My bad I meant everywhere I read it in the U.S. I read the article in the newspaper when I get home tonight I will type the whole article out to refernce it.
Well Roe vs. Wade is about when a fetus turns to life and it says that around the 3rd trimester that happens. Were the pro-lifers are saying that at contraception it's a life, something around that part. Next stop for the US. The world is going to be flat again.
Well Roe vs. Wade is about when a fetus turns to life and it says that around the 3rd trimester that happens. Were the pro-lifers are saying that at contraception it's a life, something around that part. Next stop for the US. The world is going to be flat again.
if a woman dosent want the baby then just put it up for adoption dont fucking kill it
Well, if Bush does have a plan to try to get Roe v. Wade reversed, he won't do it until Alito is confirmed. It's quite possible that he (or the Republican party in general) will try something like this. The Republicans have been catering to the religious right of late.
See I myself would agree with you on this point, but the state of affairs for adopted children in the country is like that of the third world. It's really not up to the government what people are doing for with there body at all.Lib-Sl@yer wrote:
if a woman dosent want the baby then just put it up for adoption dont fucking kill it
wowcpt.fass1 wrote:
Well Roe vs. Wade is about when a fetus turns to life and it says that around the 3rd trimester that happens. Were the pro-lifers are saying that at contraception it's a life, something around that part. Next stop for the US. The world is going to be flat again.
Ok first of all, the President cannot simply "reverse" a SCOTUS ruling. It doesn't work like that. He can apply pressure to the court to rehear a case but the Supreme Court does not answer to him. Our system of government was created with the concept of "checks and balances".
Secondly, Roe v Wade was not about when a fetus turns to life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade Please educate yourself before spouting half truths and conjecture.
Last edited by FeloniousMonk (2006-01-25 15:02:46)
Well stated FeloniousMonk! "Bush" as you call him IS the President of the United States. Give the office of the Presidency its due respect, even if you personally don't like the man. And as said, the President cannot just change laws, even if he has an appointed Supreme Court Justice siding with specific laws. Again, educate yourself before making inaccurate and false claims.FeloniousMonk wrote:
wowcpt.fass1 wrote:
Well Roe vs. Wade is about when a fetus turns to life and it says that around the 3rd trimester that happens. Were the pro-lifers are saying that at contraception it's a life, something around that part. Next stop for the US. The world is going to be flat again.
Ok first of all, the President cannot simply "reverse" a SCOTUS ruling. It doesn't work like that. He can apply pressure to the court to rehear a case but the Supreme Court does not answer to him. Our system of government was created with the concept of "checks and balances".
Secondly, Roe v Wade was not about when a fetus turns to life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade Please educate yourself before spouting half truths and conjecture.
The U.S. Constitution does give you a right to be a complete moron.
That's true. I am not sure how easy it would be for the court to ignore precedent (Roe v Wade), but I would imagine that a new case concerning abortion would have to make it to the Supreme Ct. for them to be able to overturn roe v. wade in any way.FeloniousMonk wrote:
wowcpt.fass1 wrote:
Well Roe vs. Wade is about when a fetus turns to life and it says that around the 3rd trimester that happens. Were the pro-lifers are saying that at contraception it's a life, something around that part. Next stop for the US. The world is going to be flat again.
Ok first of all, the President cannot simply "reverse" a SCOTUS ruling. It doesn't work like that. He can apply pressure to the court to rehear a case but the Supreme Court does not answer to him. Our system of government was created with the concept of "checks and balances".
Secondly, Roe v Wade was not about when a fetus turns to life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade Please educate yourself before spouting half truths and conjecture.
Yeah.......ummmmm........I don't know where you've been hiding for the last 5 years, but Bush has always been pro life.
Republican = pro life - isn't that why he's trying to stack the Supreme Court?
He had an ingenious idea - nominate some retard with no experience (Harriet Myers) and then nominate some totally right wing person to appease your party.
He had an ingenious idea - nominate some retard with no experience (Harriet Myers) and then nominate some totally right wing person to appease your party.
Ok, one last time. If the Supreme Court reverse's Roe/Wade (Which I am sure they will), it will be up to the states to deciede yay or nay.
Soooo the blue states will still be legal and the red states will be illegal.
Soooo the blue states will still be legal and the red states will be illegal.
Except you then reopen one of the original complaints that the abortion laws unfairly forced the poor to have children since they can't afford to travel to a legal state. Or a situation where a California doctor performs an abortion for a Texas resident and Texas attempts to exert standing in the matter. Much like you can (although it rarely happens) be arrested if you are a 19 year old US citizen drinking in Canada, despite the lower drinking age in much of Canada. Texas could argue that you are always held to the more strict law when traveling across boundaries and therefore even though the entire procedure took place in California the Texan patient can be arrested. And God forbid she communicated from Texas to set up the appointment, then you can throw conspiracy charges in on both the patient and the doctor. It is one of those issues that really needs to be consistent throughout the country. Regardless of which side of the issue anyone is on, overturning Roe v Wade back to a state decision would cause a massive litigation logjam. If for only that reason I am hoping it doesn't happen.Stealth42o wrote:
Ok, one last time. If the Supreme Court reverse's Roe/Wade (Which I am sure they will), it will be up to the states to deciede yay or nay.
Soooo the blue states will still be legal and the red states will be illegal.
>>
I don't think the Supreme Court will overturn the case, because it is unprecendented (at least in my lifetime), and it would cause a great uproar throughout the country. And I don't think Bush wants 2 wars facing him. I believe Abortion should be legalized, just not too late..
I don't think the Supreme Court will overturn the case, because it is unprecendented (at least in my lifetime), and it would cause a great uproar throughout the country. And I don't think Bush wants 2 wars facing him. I believe Abortion should be legalized, just not too late..
I heard this on the radio a while ago, and if there are any females in the audience, I tend to think that most of them would agree:
"If you can't ovulate, then shut the hell up about abortion."
The rights concerning a woman's uterus is up to the woman and the woman alone. It shouldn't be up to a bunch of old pederasts arguing in the House and Senate.
Another interesting point is that if right-to-lifers want to keep pushing that a Person is created at conception, then I think that a case of invasion of privacy could be argued, as they basically want to control the woman's uterus and contents, thus denying her of her rights and personal possession of her uterus/embryotic cells.
"If you can't ovulate, then shut the hell up about abortion."
The rights concerning a woman's uterus is up to the woman and the woman alone. It shouldn't be up to a bunch of old pederasts arguing in the House and Senate.
Another interesting point is that if right-to-lifers want to keep pushing that a Person is created at conception, then I think that a case of invasion of privacy could be argued, as they basically want to control the woman's uterus and contents, thus denying her of her rights and personal possession of her uterus/embryotic cells.
Last edited by Marconius (2006-01-25 18:56:30)
I have to agree with one woman in Australia (around the time of the Dismissal, a turning point in AUS politics. REad about it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian … is_of_1975
Had a sign saying
MY WOMB IS NOT STATE PROPERTY
Had a sign saying
MY WOMB IS NOT STATE PROPERTY
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I am a 22 year old married female, I have never been pregnant before, and I am pro-choice.
Just another point of view...
Controversial Website?
The end...
Just another point of view...
Controversial Website?
The end...
Last edited by KtotheIMMY (2006-01-26 13:39:40)
I'm with this guy. It should be consistent throughout the whole country.DakkonBlackblade wrote:
Except you then reopen one of the original complaints that the abortion laws unfairly forced the poor to have children since they can't afford to travel to a legal state. Or a situation where a California doctor performs an abortion for a Texas resident and Texas attempts to exert standing in the matter. Much like you can (although it rarely happens) be arrested if you are a 19 year old US citizen drinking in Canada, despite the lower drinking age in much of Canada. Texas could argue that you are always held to the more strict law when traveling across boundaries and therefore even though the entire procedure took place in California the Texan patient can be arrested. And God forbid she communicated from Texas to set up the appointment, then you can throw conspiracy charges in on both the patient and the doctor. It is one of those issues that really needs to be consistent throughout the country. Regardless of which side of the issue anyone is on, overturning Roe v Wade back to a state decision would cause a massive litigation logjam. If for only that reason I am hoping it doesn't happen.Stealth42o wrote:
Ok, one last time. If the Supreme Court reverse's Roe/Wade (Which I am sure they will), it will be up to the states to deciede yay or nay.
Soooo the blue states will still be legal and the red states will be illegal.
Also, I am pro-choice. Her body, her choice. as easy as that. No person/institution/government has the right to interfere with a woman's decision what to to with her body in that regard.
still, I'd love to see the original source ( where Bush said he would do it ).
I'm pro-choice in that it needs to be the woman's decision. I do have a couple of points regarding it though.
1. On demand abortions only during first trimester. That is plenty of time to know and decide. Any abortions beyond this point should be for medical reasons only (e.g. the baby has fatal deformaties or there is severe risk to the mother by completing the delivery.)
2. Use education to fight the source of the problem. Abortion is like cutting off your arm for a minor infection that could have been treated with antibiotics. We need to make sure that woman and the poor are getting a better education so that the number of times on demand aboriton is used becomes minimized.
1. On demand abortions only during first trimester. That is plenty of time to know and decide. Any abortions beyond this point should be for medical reasons only (e.g. the baby has fatal deformaties or there is severe risk to the mother by completing the delivery.)
2. Use education to fight the source of the problem. Abortion is like cutting off your arm for a minor infection that could have been treated with antibiotics. We need to make sure that woman and the poor are getting a better education so that the number of times on demand aboriton is used becomes minimized.
Not so. Surveys show that the majority of GOP voters are pro-choice (as are most voters in the US). The party base is largely pro-life, but in this case, I think the GOP are shooting themselves in the foot by sticking to the base. It makes them appear out of touch (which they probably are).TehSeraphim wrote:
Republican = pro life
I don't think the second poster is correct. You cannot be arrested for drinking in Canada, if you are of legal age to do so there. No US authority has jurisdiction in the matter (although I wouldn't be surprised if some shmuck tried to claim there was - that doesn't make it so. US Gov't is constantly overreaching its constituional authority. A good attorney would make mincemeat of any claim to exert jurisdiction in another country).DakkonBlackblade wrote:
Except you then reopen one of the original complaints that the abortion laws unfairly forced the poor to have children since they can't afford to travel to a legal state. Or a situation where a California doctor performs an abortion for a Texas resident and Texas attempts to exert standing in the matter. Much like you can (although it rarely happens) be arrested if you are a 19 year old US citizen drinking in Canada, despite the lower drinking age in much of Canada. Texas could argue that you are always held to the more strict law when traveling across boundaries and therefore even though the entire procedure took place in California the Texan patient can be arrested. And God forbid she communicated from Texas to set up the appointment, then you can throw conspiracy charges in on both the patient and the doctor. It is one of those issues that really needs to be consistent throughout the country. Regardless of which side of the issue anyone is on, overturning Roe v Wade back to a state decision would cause a massive litigation logjam. If for only that reason I am hoping it doesn't happen.Stealth42o wrote:
Ok, one last time. If the Supreme Court reverse's Roe/Wade (Which I am sure they will), it will be up to the states to deciede yay or nay.
Soooo the blue states will still be legal and the red states will be illegal.
This means that states have to respect each other's laws. You cannot be arrested for doing what is legal in the state in which you did it, even if it is illegal in your home state.US Constitution wrote:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Re: Roe vs. Wade. I am pro choice too. I love abortion...I wish everyone would get one. Nevertheless, Roe vs. Wade is bad US law, precisely because our law is designed to allow different jurisdictions the freedom to make their own standards (which I think is a good thing). Here's how:B.Schuss wrote:
I'm with this guy. It should be consistent throughout the whole country.
Roe vs. Wade violates both of these. You don't have to like it, but that's the law (of course, the law has rarely been known to stop a US politician before).Bill of Rights wrote:
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.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-01-26 08:43:18)
SO you would force a woman, rape victim, to carry it to term? What if the guy was HIV positive? You want to bring an HIV positive baby into the world?Lib-Sl@yer wrote:
if a woman dosent want the baby then just put it up for adoption dont fucking kill it
It isnt just black and white.
This is what happens when religion gets involved with government. There is a reason for the seperation of church and state. Countries that don't have separation of church and state: Most of the middle east. You wanna go down that road? They seem like such wonderful countries, especially for women!
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
That's such a crock of shit. If someone is too poor to travel to another state then they are too fucking poor to be fucking. With the exception of rape it is no one's fault but the unemployed idiots that they got pregnant. Besides, if they're too poor to travel to another state then they're too poor to pay for an abortion, something which should NEVER be paid for by government funds.DakkonBlackblade wrote:
Except you then reopen one of the original complaints that the abortion laws unfairly forced the poor to have children since they can't afford to travel to a legal state.
Cite your sources? I have never heard of someone getting arrested in Canada simply because he was a US citizen.Or a situation where a California doctor performs an abortion for a Texas resident and Texas attempts to exert standing in the matter. Much like you can (although it rarely happens) be arrested if you are a 19 year old US citizen drinking in Canada, despite the lower drinking age in much of Canada.
And what makes you think that Texas would win that argument? Any precedent for such a situation?Texas could argue that you are always held to the more strict law when traveling across boundaries and therefore even though the entire procedure took place in California the Texan patient can be arrested.
I disagree. It's a decision that needs to be kept out of the government's hand completely. The only people who should ever be allowed to have a say in the choice of an abortion are the two creators of the fetus and, if they so choose, a physician. That's it.It is one of those issues that really needs to be consistent throughout the country.