NationStates Jolt Archive

If the GOP get's it's first dream come true (other than the Holocaust of the gays) and Roe V Wade is overturned, the GOP would not of banned abortion.

It would return the right to legalize or ban abortion back to the states.

Which means that there would be a BIG boost to the Tourist economies of Democrat States as Bus loads of Red-Staters go to the "Elitist Coastal States" to get abortions.

I can see new state slogans right now...

Massachusetts: "Where the Country was Born... But your Baby wasn't!"
California: "China's Population Control Laws have NOTHING on us!"
New York: "Aborting Babies since the dawn of time!"

Which just goes to show you that the GOP people are not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

And if they succeeded in fulfilling the overturn of Rove V Wade this will make their voters satisfied customers... and satisfied customers don't buy a product they no longer need... And this will bring new life to the Liberal movement in the Democratic Party and in America...

Might not be the best idea after all for the GOP to overturn Rove V Wade after all...

Bump!

It doesn't matter: John Roberts is on the record as supporting judicial restraint, so this isn't even a consideration unless Alito gets confirmed (which hopefully he won't). Roe v. Wade is safe.

Uhh...I think what the GOP actually wants is a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Course, it'll probably come in steps...first overturn R v W, then amend the constitution later.

Uhh...I think what the GOP actually wants is a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Course, it'll probably come in steps...first overturn R v W, then amend the constitution later.
You're kidding, right? The Blue States will never pass it...

I'd be out of a job. That's what would happen.

I'd be out of a job. That's what would happen.


Poor Neo-K.

:(

Poor Neo-K.

:(
I have to pay the (drug) bills somehow.:(

Women would get their tubes tied by the time they were 15. Abortion Clinic Bombers will be out of a job. Women who wanted an Abortion would go to a Blue State, if it was banned everywhere, they'd find a backally doctor and a coathanger. And the Religous Right will start purging the non believers after forcing the Schools to teach (Un)Intellegant Design.

I have to pay the (drug) bills somehow.:(

Sigh

Doing the ole "Clotheshanger and Fishing Wire", eh?

I think leaving the issue of abortion to the states would be a great idea. It would (maybe) be a "first step" to banning abortion, which is what i think is right. Thats just my opinion. Please respect it. If i respect yours. Please dont post back to me trying to justify abortion. The other day i had a long and hard debate with some lady about abortion, and i dont feel like going through all that again.

(hehe i said "long and hard" lol)

Just so you know that Banning it wouldn't end it Pacifissia.

The mother could posion herself enough that the Fetus dies, a beating from the man who doesn't want the kid, delivering it alone then murdering it or dumping it.

Seems a whole lot better. My arguement is that
'Nothing the Government will force can do will be able to stop it.'

P.S.'Same with terrorism and Drugs.' (Sadly)

(hehe i said "long and hard" lol)
Well, that explains the rest of the post...

I think leaving the issue of abortion to the states would be a great idea. It would (maybe) be a "first step" to banning abortion, which is what i think is right. Thats just my opinion. Please respect it. If i respect yours. Please dont post back to me trying to justify abortion. The other day i had a long and hard debate with some lady about abortion, and i dont feel like going through all that again.

(hehe i said "long and hard" lol)

OK.

But some women have the opinion that they control their own bodies. Please respect it.

If the GOP get's it's first dream come true (other than the Holocaust of the gays) and Roe V Wade is overturned, the GOP would not of banned abortion.

It would return the right to legalize or ban abortion back to the states.

Which means that there would be a BIG boost to the Tourist economies of Democrat States as Bus loads of Red-Staters go to the "Elitist Coastal States" to get abortions.

I can see new state slogans right now...

Massachusetts: "Where the Country was Born... But your Baby wasn't!"
California: "China's Population Control Laws have NOTHING on us!"
New York: "Aborting Babies since the dawn of time!"

Which just goes to show you that the GOP people are not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

And if they succeeded in fulfilling the overturn of Rove V Wade this will make their voters satisfied customers... and satisfied customers don't buy a product they no longer need... And this will bring new life to the Liberal movement in the Democratic Party and in America...

Might not be the best idea after all for the GOP to overturn Rove V Wade after all...

So...conservatives who voted GOP for the abortion issue will then procede to vote FOR the pro-abortion Democrats? And you call US dim. Sounds like some serious projection to me.

OK.

But some women have the opinion that they control their own bodies. Please respect it.

So are you in favor legalizing Heroin? Their body, their choice, right?

So are you in favor legalizing Heroin? Their body, their choice, right?
I know it wasn't addressed to me, but yes. Their body, their choice.

I hope Roe v. Wade is overturned, but not exactly for moral reasons. It will end the case that set a dangerous precedent in this country: that courts can legislate from the bench. Will they still do it? Yes, and it may never stop. But at least a hated symbol of that age will be gone. Besides, overturning Roe would be a real act of legal courage by SCOTUS for saying that it set an unconstitutional precedent.

I hope Roe v. Wade is overturned, but not exactly for moral reasons. It will end the case that set a dangerous precedent in this country: that courts can legislate from the bench. Will they still do it? Yes, and it may never stop. But at least a hated symbol of that age will be gone. Besides, overturning Roe would be a real act of legal courage by SCOTUS for saying that it set an unconstitutional precedent.

You have that all so very backwards.

I will laugh my ass of if the GOP is dumb enough to overturn Roe V Wade, because it will enliven the dying Liberal base by getting voting blocks who previously didn't care about politics back into the voting booths, voting for Pro-Choice Democrats (and a few Pro-Choice Republicans) or any party that is Pro-Choice.

And the GOP? Without such a powerful hot-button issue the GOP won't have something to wave in front of their religious block to keep them coming to the voting booth and the polls the GOP will lose SIGNIFICANT ground in quiet a few election cycles.

It's that simple.

I guess if it gets overturned, girls with unwanted pregnancies will just have to sit and drink pennyroyal tea.

And I do support legalizing all drugs. Legalization ends black marketization. Plus, it puts an entire alphabet soup bureaucracy out of business - the DEA.
Abortion: I'm on the fence. As an agnostic, I could not care less about the religious aspects of it, but I find it funny that those most religiously against it are also those most against the best alternative - contraception. I fully oppose abortion as a means of "oops, we fucked up" way to end a pregnancy, but I fully support it in cases of rape, pregnancy being a risk to the mother's life (she can always try again next time or adopt if there's no hope of natural birth), or if a couple has faithfully used the best forms of contraception available to them as of now (Pill, condoms - whatever) and the preventation failed. You don't want abortions? Stop restricting RU- whatever # it is (the morning after Pill.
Don't even get me on a rant now, but it's totally wack how those most against homosexuality (the Church) have a bunch of child-molesting priests, and those most against abortion (the Religious right) are totally against teaching any kind of pregnancy prevention other than their myth of abstinence. Those corporate bozos are the same and exact ones who fill TV with images of 12-year-old girls in full makeup and sexy clothing, because THAT'S WHERE THE PROFIT MARGIN IS.
Hypocrites, all of them!

(I don't know if this is spam, forgive me if it is, but come join the Socialist Parties of NS.)

You have that all so very backwards.
If you mean that I say that abortion itself is unconstitutional, it is not, or at least not explicitly. However, for the Supreme Court to mandate that something not even mentioned in the constitution is protected everywhere is at the fringe of legality, just like Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia was in the 1830s.

If you mean that I say that abortion itself is unconstitutional, it is not, or at least not explicitly. However, for the Supreme Court to mandate that something not even mentioned in the constitution is protected everywhere is at the fringe of legality, just like Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia was in the 1830s.

Um. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was a good decision.

But regardless, you ignore the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Ninth Amendment is one of the many reasons that the Supreme Court has held that the list of fundamental rights in the first 8 Amendments is not to be taken as exhaustive.

Furthermore, you overlook the Fourteenth Amendment which provides protection against the deprivation of fundamental liberties.

Your insistence on "explicit" Constitutional rights is inconsistent with: (a) the original Bill of Rights (i.e., the 9th Amendment), (b) the intentions of the Founding Fathers (e.g., the motives behind the 9th Amendment), (c) the 14th Amendment, (d) the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, and (e) well over 100 years of Supreme Court decisions.

Here is yet another quote from the Supreme Court - this one written by Chief Justice Rhenquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Further, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

Every time I read one of your posts, I can only think "pwned". :fluffle:

Every time I read one of your posts, I can only think "pwned". :fluffle:

Same here man, same here. Cat kicks ass.

What happens?

Democracy dies a junkies death in the gutter to rousing choruses of praise jesus.

Democracy dies a junkies death in the gutter to rousing choruses of praise jesus.

Good times.

Good times.


DY-NO-MITE!

DY-NO-MITE!

Hooray! Jimmie Walker ftw! Man ... imagine if his mother had had an abortion. (gotta stay on topic)

what will happen if they over turn it?

I'll get up out of bed, make my coffee, and watch Sportscenter because I give about this much || of a damn about it.

If the GOP get's it's first dream come true (other than the Holocaust of the gays) and Roe V Wade is overturned, the GOP would not of banned abortion.

It would return the right to legalize or ban abortion back to the states.
That's the argument that gets made all the time by so-called state's rights proponents--too bad it's a pipe dream. Congress could very easily pass a federal abortion ban once Roe is out of the way--not one that I would find constitutional, but one that a Supreme Court that overturned Roe would.

Same here man, same here. Cat kicks ass.
The Cat rocks. Purr, baby, purr.....

Women would get their tubes tied by the time they were 15. Abortion Clinic Bombers will be out of a job. Women who wanted an Abortion would go to a Blue State, if it was banned everywhere, they'd find a backally doctor and a coathanger. And the Religous Right will start purging the non believers after forcing the Schools to teach (Un)Intellegant Design.
No need, as long as they can travel to other countries. And when the purges start, they just won't come back. Could we live to see Americans defecting to Eastern Europe? :eek:

Just so you know that Banning it wouldn't end it Pacifissia.

The mother could posion herself enough that the Fetus dies, a beating from the man who doesn't want the kid, delivering it alone then murdering it or dumping it.

Seems a whole lot better. My arguement is that
'Nothing the Government will force can do will be able to stop it.'

P.S.'Same with terrorism and Drugs.' (Sadly) Same with crime in general.

OK.

But some women have the opinion that they control their own bodies. Please respect it.

By all means - provided they are willing to respect the child's rights. Each is equally important.

That's the argument that gets made all the time by so-called state's rights proponents--too bad it's a pipe dream. Congress could very easily pass a federal abortion ban once Roe is out of the way--not one that I would find constitutional, but one that a Supreme Court that overturned Roe would.

No, I don't really think so. The best they could probably do was pass a bill banning transport of pregnant women from one state to another under a very twisted rendering of the commerce clause. No one, I think, could possibly expand the elastic clause to include an out and out legislative ban on abortion and make it stick: it's too obvious that we've survived as a nation for some time with legalized abortion, so the argument that it is necessary and proper to ban it would just be patently absurd.

Really, the main consequence would be large-scale disaster for the Republican party. Women who vote Republican or don't vote would be lost for a generation to the Dems, and more and more people will switch their positions once their daughters start dying of abortion-induced infections and internal injuries. Moreover, this switch will be happening across the country and predominantly in places where Republicans 1) have to secure to remain a power, and 2) have a fairly tenuous hold already. In short, they'd lose the suburbs they need to stay competitive, and the Dems would gradually become viable in what is today the most rock-ribbed Republican areas of the country.

By all means - provided they are willing to respect the child's rights. Each is equally important.
Which is why killing an infant is illegal. (Look up the word "child". It doesn't mean what you think it means.)

So are you in favor legalizing Heroin? Their body, their choice, right?

Actually, yes.

By all means - provided they are willing to respect the child's rights. Each is equally important.

What child? Where? If it had been determined to be a child biologically or legally, hell, even grammatically, you would have a much better case. Right now, I know of no child.

It won't be overturned so don't get your knickers in a bind.

By all means - provided they are willing to respect the child's rights. Each is equally important.
a fetus is in no way, shape or form a child.
Current law in the US states that states may make no law restricting abortion in the first trimester, may restrict it in such a way that maternal health is reasonably protected in the second, and may restrict third trimester (or late term) abortions except in extreme cases where it is needed to preserve life and/or health.

When you can find me a fetus that can survive on its own if it is born in the first trimester, then you have worked a miracle. And the vast majority of abortions occur at this time. About 40% of babies born weighing 500g survive (just over 1 lb). Throughout the first trimester, it is still only an embryo, not getting the lable fetus untill the late first trimester. At that point, the fetus will weigh only .5-1 oz, and be about three inches in length.

When it can survive on its own...or hell, even with the most advanced medical aid, then I will give it rights. Untill then, no. It is not a life if it can't live. sorry.

If abortion is outlawed they will just go back to the way it was done before hospitals. Stabbing the fetuses with wire clothes hangers or sticking hunks of tree bark up the cervix to induce miscarriages.

what will happen if they over turn it?

I'll get up out of bed, make my coffee, and watch Sportscenter because I give about this much || of a damn about it.

And the World thanks you for taking your precious time posting in a thread you have no interest in just to say "I Don't Care."

:rolleyes:

Anyways...

One of the biggest reason there are abortions is that the mothers can't take care of them and the Adoption Market is glutted since most Americans won't settle for anything less than The Perfectly Healthy White Baby. It's just like Illegal Immigration. It's a waste of money and misery combatting the symptoms when the root problem is still there.

If more childless couples weren't anal retentive about adopting The Perfectly Healthy White Baby then there'd be less abortions.

And the World thanks you for taking your precious time posting in a thread you have no interest in just to say "I Don't Care."

:rolleyes:

Anyways...

One of the biggest reason there are abortions is that the mothers can't take care of them and the Adoption Market is glutted since most Americans won't settle for anything less than The Perfectly Healthy White Baby. It's just like Illegal Immigration. It's a waste of money and misery combatting the symptoms when the root problem is still there.

If more childless couples weren't anal retentive about adopting The Perfectly Healthy White Baby then there'd be less abortions.
even worse than that, the legal prescident in America is that the biological parents can come and take the kid back at any time, so American babies don't usually get adopted.

:fluffle: = Pleasure!

But can also equal a squalling baby. Don't be a fool, wrap your tool!:)

No, I don't really think so. The best they could probably do was pass a bill banning transport of pregnant women from one state to another under a very twisted rendering of the commerce clause. No one, I think, could possibly expand the elastic clause to include an out and out legislative ban on abortion and make it stick: it's too obvious that we've survived as a nation for some time with legalized abortion, so the argument that it is necessary and proper to ban it would just be patently absurd.

Really, the main consequence would be large-scale disaster for the Republican party. Women who vote Republican or don't vote would be lost for a generation to the Dems, and more and more people will switch their positions once their daughters start dying of abortion-induced infections and internal injuries. Moreover, this switch will be happening across the country and predominantly in places where Republicans 1) have to secure to remain a power, and 2) have a fairly tenuous hold already. In short, they'd lose the suburbs they need to stay competitive, and the Dems would gradually become viable in what is today the most rock-ribbed Republican areas of the country.
I'm not saying that any national abortion ban would withstand an honest constitutional scrutiny--I'm saying that it would hold up under the scrutiny of a court with the likes of Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on it.

In the long run, yes, it could work out better for pro-choice advocates, but in the long run we're all dead, so that's little comfort for those women who get screwed in the meantime.

:fluffle: = Pleasure!

But can also equal a squalling baby. Don't be a fool, wrap your tool!:)

Problem is, the puritannical and hypocritical fruitcakes in charge of the country at the moment want it both ways. Don't want anyone having an abortion, but they don't want anyone wrapping their tools either.