Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 1, 2006.
Meh, this isn't so bad. They all kiss each others asses. I'd like to see them really try to overturn Roe v. Wade. Seriously. Let them try. The ramifications would be disastrous. We've become too lazy and comfortable. Let's see what happens when women have to go back to coat hangers. And police have to spend time arresting some doctors for saving womens lives. And rich Republicans suddenly start taking their Daughters on trips to Mexico more often. And the amount of unwanted children surpasses available parents who want to adopt, even worse than it is now. Or how claims of rape suddenly skyrocket if that's the only legal way to get one.
This is all for show people, they like to talk but no one actually going to get away with it.
Ok doomsday... an overturn of Roe v. Wade simply means that each state will pass its own laws. Exceptions for rape/incest/mother's health would be plentiful. Many states wouldn't even outlaw it (in my opinion) so it would mean nothing more than driving across state lines in many instances.
It should have never been an issue decided by courts.
which states, do you think?
My guess is less than half would outlaw it. I'll give the ones I think are more likely to outlaw it since that list I think will be shorter.
Miss, Ala, Geor, S. Car, N. Car, TN, TX, Utah
VA, W. VA, KY, Ark, Okla
Thats just kind of my arbitrary guesses.
So we can have states where women are denied the right to an abortion unless they are rich enough to travel to a clinic out of state? Sounds like "Hurricane Katrina" rights to me. If you're poor you are SOL. We also can have a system of justice in which a doctor who performs the procedure in one state is put in jail for five years and nothing happens to the same doctor if he/she does the same in the state next door? Makes sense to me.
Either women have a right to control their own reproductive lives or their wombs are the jurisdiction of states dominated by a religious minority who wants to impose their views as law. This is NOT an issue to be decided by local authorities because it effects the basic abilities of half the population in their right to determine their future, their health, and their liberty.
Solvs, be careful what you wish for because it might come true. I've no confidence Kennedy will not vote with the gruesome four to overturn Roe, and I'm certain if Bush can push through another nominee it is gone with only a constitutional amendment able to overturn the decision. Think about getting 38 states to pass such an amendment, if it is even possible to get it through Congress.
As would false claims of rape, as I said. Things won't immediately get bad, but for those states that try to outlaw it, do you really think things will get better? Especially for women? Especially poor women who can't just go to another state. I don't like abortions, but I'm not a woman, and I don't like the idea of what might happen if we outlaw it.
And I was actually referring to them trying to outlaw abortions, not just making it about states' rights. So... do you feel the same way about gay rights? Should that be an issue for the states as well?
wow, i'm kind of on the other end of the spectrum.
it would probably worthwhile for us to decide what exactly "outlawing" means. if that means no abortions under any circumstances, then yeah, you may be near the mark.
i think most states would allow it with strict restrictions, the typical rape / incest / threatening life of mother.
if we're talking about on-demand abortion, like is protected today under roe v wade, i'd be surprised if more than 5 states ended up adopting that.
likely candidates: CA, IL, NY, plus maybe one or two more NE states.
edit: this polling data is broken down by state. hm, maybe there will be more than 5.
All that sounds really bad for the women. However, I'm more concerned about the all babies being killed for convenience sake.
EDIT: The whole premise of the pro-life position is that the baby's right to life supersedes a woman's right to "control her body" (or whatever term you'd like to use). So you can see why I don't have a problem making it as difficult as possible to obtain an abortion except in extreme circumstances.
And you have every right to view every sperm as sacred if you want. Just don't pass laws or hand down rulings that force everyone to conduct their lives a certain way because of what you believe.
Come one sayhey, you don't buy that kind of reasoning when it comes to other civil rights. I'm guessing you had no problem with laws forcing racial integration. The people introducing those laws had a moral responsibility to "impose their values" on the rest of society. I see this issue as an exact parallel.
and the whole premise of pro-choice is that society has no right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
there. that's the debate in a nutshell.
Society tells a woman she can't punch someone else in the face. So yes, society can, in certain instances, tell a woman what to do with her body.
i'm really not interested in having yet another abortion debate. interesting to me is what the fallout of a roe v wade overturning might be. interesting to me is speculation on which states will adopt on demand abortion. interesting to me are thoughts on the inappropriateness of alito thanking dobson.
boring to me is a retread of abortion. we all know the arguments and we've all picked our sides.
sorry to rant, but...
I most certainly do "buy" that kind of reasoning. The civil rights movement was and is all about the ability of people to have basic rights protected regardless of the prejudiced beliefs of those who controlled certain states. So, yes, there is a parallel it just has nothing to do with the pro-life cant about equating Roe v. Wade to Plessy v. Freguson. Women have the right to control their own decisions about their repoductive lives. Otherwise we have second class citizens - just like segregation laws mandated to the decendants of slaves. The "imposition" of values is one to protect the liberties of african-americans, and in this case of all women, from the religious views of a few. That impostion is in keeping with something called "equal protection."
Ok, going to bed. My whole point with that last post was simply to show that the premise of the pro-choice position:
is illogical and based purely on emotional appeal.
so... how 'bout that alito?
Sorry for my rant, but I've a daughter and I take crap like this rather personally. I find the thought of her having to live her life with others telling her how she must conform to their religious notions of what is right and wrong very frightening.
Not to belittle the questions you find interesting, but let me ask another - what do you think the impact will be of a fifth extreme conservative on the court for all aspects of our civil liberties? I ask it because too often we get caught up in the tactical situation of current politics and dismiss the broader and more basic issues at hand. Roe v. Wade is only the tip of the iceberg in fundamental changes that could and probably will occur over the next twenty to thirty years with extremism ruling the one institution that has protected individual liberty over the last 50 years.
i think we've gotten a nice preview over the past few years. IJR's may have a comment on it, but i see more of a move towards the classical definition of fascism, where business interests dictate policy.
intellectual property and copyright will be granted to corporations, stifling creativity. this will be the form censorship will take.
privacy rights will continue to erode. deployment of RFID technology, and its replacements, will expand to IDs beyond passports. tracking and maintaining movement data (cards, automobiles) will be commonplace, as will electronic monitoring.
4th amendment rights will continue to erode, always for a "good reason". for example, the police will be able to access movement databases in order to cast nets to anyone who was in the area of a crime scene during a certain window.
the freedom of information act will be repealed, perhaps only implicitly as all requests are denied and the reclassification and hiding of records continues.
ideology will drive media and school content, under the guise of equal time.
"shoot the messenger" will be standard operation. we'll move from whistleblower protection to whistleblowing being a serious crime. national security will always be cited.
the wild west days of the internet will come to an end as pay-to-play takes over. infotainment courtesy of big congolms (aol/time warner, et. al.) will be pushed over highspeed lines. "the last mile" will become part of the lexicon as our favorite sites simply can't afford the cost of reaching homes and will fade away.
so long as these changes aren't horribly inconvenient to day-to-day life, americans will allow it.
i wonder if there'll be bigger changes. for example, the expansion of unchecked executive power would eventually render congress irrelevant. it'd be interesting to see the manner in which it would be disbanded. possibly a widespread quarantine or curfews during a recess, not enabling congressmen to return to D.C. After 6 months of that, it'd be generally expected that congress won't convene again. same or similar circumstances would cancel elections, making the transition to a dictatorship complete.
i don't even want to think about the justice system. feds won't need warrants or evidence, only sealed envelope cause. just like gitmo, detentions can be limitless -- prison sentence without a trial. at least one where the accused is allowed to attend.
And since the premise of the pro-life position is the unprovable idea that life begins at conception, it's also based on illogical and emotional appeals.
'Round and 'round we go.
This is still a non-story...
Just a wink and a nod to the base.
Coming from you, that's actually pretty funny. I think my irony detector just exploded. Are you saying that society does have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body? Again, not a fan of abortion, but I'm also not a woman. And laws with only make things worse.
Doesn't come from emotion, comes from history and other cultures around the world that don't allow such things.
And no one answered my question on gay rights.
Here's my list:
States that will outlaw it or highly restrict it:
FL, MS, AL, LA, AR, MO, MS, TN, KY, WV, TX, NC, SC, GA, IN, OH, OK, IA, ND, SD, NE, KS, WY, UT
States in which it will be legal:
ME, MA, RI, CT, VT, NH, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, WI, MN, IL, ID, WA, OR, CA, AZ, NM
You'll note that this falls almost right down 2004 election lines... but that's my take on it... it's totally unsubstantiated. I have been to places like Wyoming, but not Oklahoma...
When in Rome...
An encouraging post, zimv.
And this always concerned me far more than any erosion of civil liberties.