NationStates Jolt Archive

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with pleasure to announce that the Justice Samuel Alito has been Confirmed by the United States Senates.

Congratulations Justice Alito.

Whatever.

*is grateful that he doesn't live in America*

*glad not to live in the US, once more, while feeling sorry for friends this will impact in a severely negative way*

*grumble* He'd better not screw up...of course, from what I've heard, he's bound to do a few dozen things I'll disagree with...like most political figures.

*grumble* He'd better not screw up.

I am sure in his mind and Cornes mind he never will no matter what.....

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with pleasure to announce that the Justice Samuel Alito has been Confirmed by the United States Senates.

Congratulations Justice Alito.
"Victory Dance" :)

I am sure in his mind and Cornes mind he never will no matter what.....


That's what I'm afraid of...

I am sure in his mind and Cornes mind he never will no matter what.....

I would say this is slanderous but alas, I honestly do not care. You are entitled to think whatever you want.

I would've said this if a Democrat appointed a Supreme Court Justice and it got confirmed.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with pleasure to announce that the Justice Samuel Alito has been Confirmed by the United States Senates.

Congratulations Justice Alito.

*does happy dance*

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with pleasure to announce that the Justice Samuel Alito has been Confirmed by the United States Senates.

Congratulations Justice Alito.
And with any luck the first thing the Supremes will get to work on throwing out is:


































McCain-Feingold and its assault on the Internet and free speech.

(What, you thought I was going to say somthing else? :D )

Does this mean the right-wingers now have a majority on the Supreme Court?

well...

ok...

*Sits back with HUGE tub of NS Brand Popcorn, ready to watch the flame and fireworks for those who Opposed Alito.*

I would say this is slanderous but alas, I honestly do not care. You are entitled to think whatever you want.

I would've said this if a Democrat appointed a Supreme Court Justice and it got confirmed.

If you didn't care, then why did you reply?

I am sure you would support a democrat as long as he was heavily conservative.

Yup, real glad I'm not american....

but this judge is a terrible choice! just listen to this: click me (http://home.arcor.de/genius23/bin/alitoad.wma)

Yup, real glad I'm not american....
Why? Do you perfer having less freedoms?

"Alito Confirmed"

Oh noes!!11! Teh d3mocracy has b33n s3t back 100 y3ars! It's the 3nd of teh wurld as w3 know it!!!!111ONE!!11

Yup, real glad I'm not american....
I second that.

Oh well, maybe him getting abortion banned will act as a wake-up call to women and encourage nonstatist alternatives. Oh well, the hentai, prayerless schools, and women having choices were all nice while they lasted.

Jeez, why do all of the liberals/democrats/leftist thinks that just because Alito been confirmed it's the end of the world?

How does that old saying go? Something along the lines of "You get the government that you deserve"?





Well, as Johnny Carson would have said.... "heeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Sammy!"


Enjoy.

I second that.
Kewl! That makes three of us! :D

Does this mean the right-wingers now have a majority on the Supreme Court?

Well to the right you have: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito

Kennedy: is a swing vote

Left: Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter.

Time will tell.

For some reason I see Souter moving more to the right on his decesions. He tended to follow O'Conners example.

Thank God

I was glad to hear this and am watching the news new.


Great News!

Well to the right you have: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito

Kennedy: is a swing vote

Left: Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter.

Time will tell.

For some reason I see Souter moving more to the right on his decesions. He tended to follow O'Conners example.

Ouch. Goodbye Roe vs. Wade.

"Alito Confirmed"

Oh noes!!11! Teh d3mocracy has b33n s3t back 100 y3ars! It's the 3nd of teh wurld as w3 know it!!!!111ONE!!11
100 years... well I still got popcorn... *offers to Eut.* :D

How does that old saying go? Something along the lines of "You get the government that you deserve"?


Ahh Will Rogers! :D

He and Menckin had a way with words! :D

Why? Do you perfer having less freedoms?

Yes...Americans have more freedoms than any other country in the world...:rolleyes:

Ouch. Goodbye Roe vs. Wade.

No they won't outright overturn it as it would piss off the women vote.

However, they will chip away at it just to make it near impossible to obtain.

Ouch. Goodbye Roe vs. Wade.

*ugh* Do we really HAVE to go through THIS again?

If you didn't care, then why did you reply?

Because I could. :D

I am sure you would support a democrat as long as he was heavily conservative.

Not necessarily true. If he/she was a moderate, I could possibly support them too.

Oh well, maybe him getting abortion banned will act as a wake-up call to women and encourage nonstatist alternatives. Oh well, the hentai, prayerless schools, and women having choices were all nice while they lasted.

Don't you love gloom and doom?

WAKE UP!!!!!

Ouch. Goodbye Roe vs. Wade.
Not likely.

But since when did all US politics revolve around Roe?

Oh yeah, as soon as the Dems made it a Litmus test rather than worrying about all the other crap laws that they (and the Repubs) continue to foist on us. :headbang:

Because I could. :D

Not necessarily true. If he/she was a moderate, I could possibly support them too.

I knew you loved me. :p

Well we may never know as the two sides can't seem to nominate one.

How many of the moderates started out being that way?

Ouch. Goodbye Roe vs. Wade.

Wanna bet?

Oh and another thing, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it won't be illegal throughout the US. All it means is that it goes back to the states.

Not likely.

But since when did all US politics revolve around Roe?

Oh yeah, as soon as the Dems made it a Litmus test rather than worrying about all the other crap laws that they (and the Repubs) continue to foist on us. :headbang:

Only the dems?

Hmmm when did the Repubs start offering pro-choice candidates?

Let's see...

58-42.

And Alito was SOOOO evil that the Dems, so bound and determined to protect us from evil (rather than just trying to make BushCo look bad) couldn't even buy the balls to Fillibuster.

I think it's worth a giggle.

Wanna bet?

Oh and another thing, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it won't be illegal throughout the US. All it means is that it goes back to the states.

Just like Gay marriage?

Only the dems?

Hmmm when did the Repubs start offering pro-choice candidates?
When did they start trying to BLOCK pro Choice candidates?

Just like Gay marriage?

A state issue gay marriage is. It should not be a federal issue.

Just like Gay marriage?

You do realize that abortions would probably be legalized in most states because senators and congressman need women vote, so they'll do anything to get it.

ladies and gentlemen, get your abortions, gay marriages, and low income housing now before its too late.

When did they start trying to BLOCK pro Choice candidates?

When did they start trying to BLOCK pro-life candidates?

ladies and gentlemen, get your abortions, gay marriages, and low income housing now before its too late.

*yawns*

really getting tired of doom and gloom people.

Hurray, we're all fucked.
But not in the ass, because that is gay and we must ban lewd homosexual acts, duh. To the Supreme Court!

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9308/279872712l3ge.th.jpg (http://img300.imageshack.us/my.php?image=279872712l3ge.jpg)

ladies and gentlemen, get your abortions, gay marriages, and low income housing now before its too late.

I hate doomsayers sooo much right now....

I also hate chicken little who think the whole sky is falling just because of one person being nominated.

A state issue gay marriage is. It should not be a federal issue.

civil rights are a federal issue. gay rights are civil rights. therefore, gay rights SHOULD be a federal issue. the only problem is that the federal government is crammed full of homophobes, and those who aren't homophobes are too scared of the homophobes to push for any sort of equal rights agenda.

civil rights are a federal issue. gay rights are civil rights. therefore, gay rights SHOULD be a federal issue. the only problem is that the federal government is crammed full of homophobes, and those who aren't homophobes are too scared of the homophobes to push for any sort of equal rights agenda.

List 10 states that banned gay marriage

List 10 states that approved gay marriages.

Then get back to me.

civil rights are a federal issue. gay rights are civil rights. therefore, gay rights SHOULD be a federal issue. the only problem is that the federal government is crammed full of homophobes, and those who aren't homophobes are too scared of the homophobes to push for any sort of equal rights agenda.

Fear leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
Hate leads to suffering

How is marriage a federal issue?

I hate doomsayers sooo much right now....

I also hate chicken little who think the whole sky is falling just because of one person being nominated.

the whole sky has been falling for a while. abortion access is severly limited in many red states (only once clinic in mississippi that requires that you have a counseling session the day before your abortion, so that you must take off of work and travel for at least 2 days. this is extremely difficult for poor women who have crap jobs), we all know about the gay marriage issue and how even though less than a handful of states allow civil unions, as soon as the couple crosses the border it is nullandvoid, and low income housing? well, we dont have to look very hard to find references to the decrepit state in which the majority of inner-city minorities live. they dont call it the ghetto for nothing.

I hate doomsayers sooo much right now....

I also hate chicken little who think the whole sky is falling just because of one person being nominated.
That was a fair complaint at the Roberts hearings. Now, we put some on the court whose idealogical conservativeness rivals Thomas'. That means the court has a four person conservative base. The only "swing" vote left votes more often with the "conservatives" than the other side.

How is marriage a federal issue?marital status is an issue in assessing federal taxes.

and low income housing? well, we dont have to look very hard to find references to the decrepit state in which the majority of inner-city minorities live. they dont call it the ghetto for nothing.

I don't see the democrats helping them out at all. I also don't see them helping themselves either. So who really is responsible for them living there?

When did they start trying to BLOCK pro-life candidates?
Whrr?

The Dems have consistantly tried to block "pro-life" candidates. As far as I know, no Repub has tried to block - or even seriously attack - a "pro-choice" candidate... not even Ginsburg.

Abortion is the Dem's litmus issue. Always has been.

marital status is an issue in assessing federal taxes.

True but when does the Federal Government intervene in marriage?

Whrr?

The Dems have consistantly tried to block "pro-life" candidates. As far as I know, no Repub has tried to block - or even seriously attack - a "pro-choice" candidate... not even Ginsburg.

Abortion is the Dem's litmus issue. Always has been.

Yep. I was just turning the question around.

Whrr?

The Dems have consistantly tried to block "pro-life" candidates. As far as I know, no Repub has tried to block - or even seriously attack - a "pro-choice" candidate... not even Ginsburg.

Abortion is the Dem's litmus issue. Always has been.

They couldn't block Ginsburg never mind the fact she not really a "threat"

When the repubs offer a pro-choice then you will be correct.

It's both parties that use it as a litmus test.....

First off, I would just like to say this. IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT JOB TO TAKE CARE OF YOU AND TO HELP YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE! THAT RESPONSBILITY REST ON YOUR SHOULDERS AND YOUR SHOULDERS ONLY! SO STOP SUCKING ON THE GOVERNMENT TITS AND STOP SUCKING UP MY TAX DOLLARS!

I had to get that off my chest, thank you.

the whole sky has been falling for a while. abortion access is severly limited in many red states (only once clinic in mississippi that requires that you have a counseling session the day before your abortion, so that you must take off of work and travel for at least 2 days. this is extremely difficult for poor women who have crap jobs),


Eh, that's the state decision. If you don't like it, move to another state. I personally like the counseling session, I mean at least the person is presented with alternative views, and realize that theres more a person can do than just killing a baby. I think you're just upset that people are actually presenting an alternative to abortion, HOW DARE THEY! HOW DARE THEY SHOW THAT THEY CAN DO MORE THAN JUST KILL THE FETUS! Grrr! Also, is the woman is poor, comon, if you're poor, do we really need to be thinking about child number six? I mean Condoms are only 5 dollars, I mean I'm sure you can buy that with your food stamps.


we all know about the gay marriage issue and how even though less than a handful of states allow civil unions, as soon as the couple crosses the border it is nullandvoid,


Once again, a state issuse, and while it is true about the Null and Void thing, it's not unreasonable. This is exactly why we have states! We have states so that diffrent views can have their own little plot of land. I mean jeez how hard is moving? If you don't like what one state is doing, move to another one!


and low income housing? well, we dont have to look very hard to find references to the decrepit state in which the majority of inner-city minorities live. they dont call it the ghetto for nothing.

Umm, how did you make the leap from Supreme Court to low income housing? Please see the bold at the top.

Fear leads to anger
Anger leads to hate
Hate leads to suffering

How is marriage a federal issue?

the neocons fear the "gay agenda" will undo the religion-based brainwashing of half of the nation. they are pissed at this thought, which leads them to hate all homosexuals. their hate denies homosexuals a considerable amount of rights.

marriage is not the only issue. the national adoption industry is decidedly anti-homosexual. in lesbian relationships, even if one of the women bears the children, second-parent adoption is incredibly tricky and not even an option in many states. assume that a civil union has been granted, it is not required to be recognized in other states, although the marriage liscences of heterosexual couples are requiered to be recongized. tax breaks and other benefits are less. and thats in the places where unions are granted. gays are continually denied the same rights and privledges as their heterosexual peers. i mean, the fact that high schools in california are holding gay proms just saddens me. why the segregation, people? queers and breeders can peacefully coexist, im sure of it.

the neocons fear the "gay agenda" will undo the religion-based brainwashing of half of the nation. they are pissed at this thought, which leads them to hate all homosexuals. their hate denies homosexuals a considerable amount of rights.

Now can you say that with a straight face and without the anger?

marriage is not the only issue. the national adoption industry is decidedly anti-homosexual. in lesbian relationships, even if one of the women bears the children, second-parent adoption is incredibly tricky and not even an option in many states. assume that a civil union has been granted, it is not required to be recognized in other states, although the marriage liscences of heterosexual couples are requiered to be recongized. tax breaks and other benefits are less. and thats in the places where unions are granted. gays are continually denied the same rights and privledges as their heterosexual peers. i mean, the fact that high schools in california are holding gay proms just saddens me. why the segregation, people? queers and breeders can peacefully coexist, im sure of it.

So how is marriage a federal issue?

True but when does the Federal Government intervene in marriage?well. if you want to be assessed together with your civil union partner to save taxes, but the fed government doesnt accept that, because in their eyes you are not married.
another example would be green cards, if a citizen marries a foreigner (s)he gets a green card from the fed government, but if the fed government doesnt accept this "marriage" (s)he doesnt.

List 10 states that banned gay marriage

List 10 states that approved gay marriages.

Then get back to me.

In 2004, the following 11 states passed ammendments banning gay marriage:

Arkansas , Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon


Obviously naming 10 states that have approved it is not possible. There aren't that many.

Eh, that's the state decision. If you don't like it, move to another state. I personally like the counseling session, I mean at least the person is presented with alternative views, and realize that theres more a person can do than just killing a baby. I think you're just upset that people are actually presenting an alternative to abortion, HOW DARE THEY! HOW DARE THEY SHOW THAT THEY CAN DO MORE THAN JUST KILL THE FETUS! Grrr! Also, is the woman is poor, comon, if you're poor, do we really need to be thinking about child number six? I mean Condoms are only 5 dollars, I mean I'm sure you can buy that with your food stamps.

You do realise that the majority of women seeking abortions were using contraceptives don't you? And if it was truly about helping the mother the counselling would be on the same day.

Once again, a state issuse, and while it is true about the Null and Void thing, it's not unreasonable. This is exactly why we have states! We have states so that diffrent views can have their own little plot of land. I mean jeez how hard is moving? If you don't like what one state is doing, move to another one!

So if mixed-race marriage was to be outlawed in some states that'd be ok would it?

well. if you want to be assessed together with your civil union partner to save taxes, but the fed government doesnt accept that, because in their eyes you are not married.
another example would be green cards, if a citizen marries a foreigner (s)he gets a green card from the fed government, but if the fed government doesnt accept this "marriage" (s)he doesnt.

Foreign marriages are different from those that take place in this country.

In 2004, the following 11 states passed ammendments banning gay marriage:

Arkansas , Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon


Obviously naming 10 states that have approved it is not possible. There aren't that many.

I can think of at least two that approved gay marriage. Mass. and Vermont (I think). I think California is a sure bet, and why not Utah.

I wonder what North Carolina is doing, hmmm. We have a democrat governer hmmm, probably approve.

You do realise that the majority of women seeking abortions were using contraceptives don't you? And if it was truly about helping the mother the counselling would be on the same day.

This is what pisses me off about the whole abortion debate. Everything is centered around the girl. What about us guys? Why don't we have a say? After all we were part of the equation in creating the child. Why is it that we are shunned?

You do realise that the majority of women seeking abortions were using contraceptives don't you? And if it was truly about helping the mother the counselling would be on the same day.

How would having counselling on the same day of the abortion help? The woman will need time to THINk about it! You can't make a decision like this in a few hours. You need time to THINK about it.


So if mixed-race marriage was to be outlawed in some states that'd be ok would it?

Eh, I personally wouldn't like it, but it's in the legal boundries of state power.

I can think of at least two that approved gay marriage. Mass. and Vermont (I think). I think California is a sure bet, and why not Utah.

Vermont Approved of Civil Unions as has Delaware. Mass got theirs through the courts.

California had a referendum vote on this and it approved the banneing of gay marriages. However, the courts overturned the people's choice.

I can think of at least two that approved gay marriage. Mass. and Vermont (I think). I think California is a sure bet, and why not Utah.

I wonder what North Carolina is doing, hmmm. We have a democrat governer hmmm, probably approve.

California stuck down the San Francisco move so it's not assured.

Mass was still talking about it the last I heard.

Vermont did civil unions I think.

Utah? I don't think so. Aren't the Mormens against that?

As to North Carolina? I thought it tended to be conservative.

This is what pisses me off about the whole abortion debate. Everything is centered around the girl. What about us guys? Why don't we have a say? After all we were part of the equation in creating the child. Why is it that we are shunned?

Because us men have opressed women for so long, and we have opressed their rights and freedom! How DARE we try to have equal say in what happens to our child. It's the woman that suffers the most, it should be the woman's choice because we're still suffering from social grief!

/Scarcasam off

I can think of at least two that approved gay marriage. Mass. and Vermont (I think). I think California is a sure bet, and why not Utah.

I wonder what North Carolina is doing, hmmm. We have a democrat governer hmmm, probably approve.

Ah, well that's a different question. You asked who HAD approved it - not who might.

So far, only Mass has firmly approved it as far as I know, with some others flirting with the "seperate but equal" BS that is "Domestic partnership" or whatever semantic workaround they have pulled out of their asses.

How would having counselling on the same day of the abortion help? The woman will need time to THINk about it! You can't make a decision like this in a few hours. You need time to THINK about it.

She would've been thinking about it a great deal beforehand anyway, the counselling would simply be a culmination of that.

Eh, I personally wouldn't like it, but it's in the legal boundries of state power.

Which seems to me to be a very good argument against state power.

California stuck down the San Francisco move so it's not assured.

Yea, but it's the land of fruits and nuts, so trust me, it'll happen.


Mass was still talking about it the last I heard.

Another one.


Vermont did civil unions I think.

Eh close enough.

Utah? I don't think so. Aren't the Mormens against that?

You're right, my bad, I ment Nevada.

As to North Carolina? I thought it tended to be conservative.[/QUOTE]

How would having counselling on the same day of the abortion help? The woman will need time to THINk about it! You can't make a decision like this in a few hours. You need time to THINK about it.


Hate to burst your bubble but the majority of women that choose one have already thought about it.

Counselling is there to measure the intent and make sure the woman is not simply acting irationally.

Hate to burst your bubble but the groups don't force women to have one.

This is what pisses me off about the whole abortion debate. Everything is centered around the girl. What about us guys? Why don't we have a say? After all we were part of the equation in creating the child. Why is it that we are shunned?

Explain to me how this would work, if the two were in disagreement who would have the final say?

She would've been thinking about it a great deal beforehand anyway, the counselling would simply be a culmination of that.

Ahh, but how do we know she's been thinking CLEARLY? We don't, and that why we can't have counseling on the same day of the abortion.


Which seems to me to be a very good argument against state power.

How so? Eh, if North Carolina did that, and South Carolina didn't, I would just move. Not that big of a deal.

Explain to me how this would work, if the two were in disagreement who would have the final say?

That is a good question but the father should also have a say in this issue. After all, it takes 2 to create a new human being, not just one. The father should most definitely have a say in it.

First off, I would just like to say this. IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT JOB TO TAKE CARE OF YOU AND TO HELP YOU LIVE YOUR LIFE! THAT RESPONSBILITY REST ON YOUR SHOULDERS AND YOUR SHOULDERS ONLY! SO STOP SUCKING ON THE GOVERNMENT TITS AND STOP SUCKING UP MY TAX DOLLARS!

I had to get that off my chest, thank you.

one, that is your opinion about the governments role is. two, im not asking them to help me live my life. im asking them to stop putting up unneccessary obstacles. if you believe in freedom, why can't i be free to marry my girlfriend? if your only objection to homomarriage is that we will suddenly be getting the same tax-breaks as our heterosexual neighbors, you are implying that as homosexuals we deserve less. you are creating yet another oppressed minority.



Eh, that's the state decision. If you don't like it, move to another state. I personally like the counseling session, I mean at least the person is presented with alternative views, and realize that theres more a person can do than just killing a baby. I think you're just upset that people are actually presenting an alternative to abortion, HOW DARE THEY! HOW DARE THEY SHOW THAT THEY CAN DO MORE THAN JUST KILL THE FETUS! Grrr! Also, is the woman is poor, comon, if you're poor, do we really need to be thinking about child number six? I mean Condoms are only 5 dollars, I mean I'm sure you can buy that with your food stamps.


perhaps you have the disposable income to move to another state, but i sure dont. telling people to move is an ignorant cop-out of a solution. poverty is a reality and a restriction. i cannot move out of a state simply because my abortion clinic is too far away.

also, my point about the counseling wasn't that there was counseling, beacuse all states have counseling. but it is the fact that you are required to do it an entire day before you recieve your abortion. therefore, you must take more time off of work. again, poverty restricts this.

and i dont understand what you mean about "if she is poor do we need her talking about child 6" because that is the point of abortions....


Once again, a state issuse, and while it is true about the Null and Void thing, it's not unreasonable. This is exactly why we have states! We have states so that diffrent views can have their own little plot of land. I mean jeez how hard is moving? If you don't like what one state is doing, move to another one!


again, moving is not an option to a lot of people. moving is actually pretty fucking hard. i remember i had to help my mom move, she only went to a new apartment 1.5 miles down the road and it cost her 3000 dollars.

and if civil rights aren't a federal issue, we should go back in time and erase that whole "civil rights movement" from the american mind. because if civil rights were a state issue then the south would still be segregated and jim crow would be having a good ol' time lynchin' negros. and dont tell me that i am being unreasonable and going off of stereotypes -- im from south carolina. i know what im talking about.

i am an american before i am a south carolinian, not the other way around. my alligence is to the country as a whole, not the state as a specific. state rights are important, yes, but when people think of themselves first by their state, then that weakens the union.

all members of the union need to be treated the same. if i am good enough to qualify for citizenship, i deserve the same rights as my neighbors.

Explain to me how this would work, if the two were in disagreement who would have the final say?

Well, the woman would have her abortion, and the guy has the right to sue the woman for first degree murder.

Yea, but it's the land of fruits and nuts, so trust me, it'll happen.


Actually that label is out of date. There are many conservatives here now.

People tend to be moderate or liberal but there is a resonable base of a conservatives.

Why else would the repubs use the state as an ATM machine?

(the demos do as well)

Well, the woman would have her abortion, and the guy has the right to sue the woman for first degree murder.

Pretty much. I just wish the guys have the guts to force this issue.

I don't like how many(and I mean many) liberals hate opposing viewpoints. It's like conservatives and moderates are their version of heretics. Don't base your arguments on what he might do. Base them on what he already did. What's his judicial record? I don't think he CAN overturn RvW. I don't think he CAN ban gay marraige, even though once you do that, you'd probably encourage weirdos who want to marry cats or cars. I doubt he CAN, let alone wants, to overturn "rights", even though marraige should be just a privilage and not some sort of get rich quick sceme.

Ahh, but how do we know she's been thinking CLEARLY? We don't, and that why we can't have counseling on the same day of the abortion.

Why shouldn't we give her the benifit of the doubt? Just admit that you're anti-abortion and be done with it.

How so? Eh, if North Carolina did that, and South Carolina didn't, I would just move. Not that big of a deal.

But some people couldn't afford the move/couldn't risk losing their job/have to look after family in the area... There are a million reasons why this doesn't work.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with pleasure to announce that the Justice Samuel Alito has been Confirmed by the United States Senates.

Congratulations Justice Alito.


Why is this a good thing? Do you realize he is in favor of so many things more or less anti-american, like unlimited exectutive powers, or anti-privacy and so forth. So if you want the government to have unlimited power over your life, in a stalinistic type of way, then I guess having alito on the court is a good thing.

Why is this a good thing? Do you realize he is in favor of so many things more or less anti-american, like unlimited exectutive powers, or anti-privacy and so forth. So if you want the government to have unlimited power over your life, in a stalinistic type of way, then I guess having alito on the court is a good thing.

*yawns*

That is a good question but the father should also have a say in this issue. After all, it takes 2 to create a new human being, not just one. The father should most definitely have a say in it.

It would be nice if it could be done but you yourself admit that you don't know how it could be done.

Well, the woman would have her abortion, and the guy has the right to sue the woman for first degree murder.

1. Murder is illegal.
2. Abortion is legal.
3. Therefore, abortion is not murder.

It would be nice if it could be done but you yourself admit that you don't know how it could be done.

Well....

The father can always have the mother who got the abortion up before a court on murder charges.

Well....

The father can always have the mother who got the abortion up before a court on murder charges.

1. Murder is illegal.
2. Abortion is legal.
3. Therefore, abortion is not murder.

Ahh, but how do we know she's been thinking CLEARLY? We don't, and that why we can't have counseling on the same day of the abortion.



How so? Eh, if North Carolina did that, and South Carolina didn't, I would just move. Not that big of a deal.

you might be privledged and affluent enough to "just move" because you have a disagreement with a policy or two of the government, but not everyone is. congratulations on being a rich bastard, but we all aren't as lucky as you. that being said, you have clearly never had an abortion. or been pregnant. and you will never have to deal with that experience. and until you do, you cannot tell anyone what to do. unless they develop some way for the fetus to be transplanted into the male's body, men should stay out of it unless the woman decides to include him in it. although it might make him a little sad, it cannot compare to the emotions that an unwanted pregnancy can bring to a woman. it is the woman's body, the woman's desicion. end of discussion.

1. Murder is illegal.
2. Abortion is legal.
3. Therefore, abortion is not murder.

Nice fallacy. However, a case like this will shed light on the other side of the fence. Men who were so happy to be an expectent father and then having that dream dashed because his gf/wife/etc got an abortion.

You think women are the only ones who have emotional problems from this?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is with pleasure to announce that the Justice Samuel Alito has been Confirmed by the United States Senates.

Congratulations Justice Alito.

♫ It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...♫

Now tell that old fossil Teddy Kennedy and the irrelevant John Kerry to sit down and shut up.

Well, the woman would have her abortion, and the guy has the right to sue the woman for first degree murder.

That's....brilliant.

First off to sue someone is a civil act, first degree murder is a criminal act. You can't sue someone for a criminal act.

Second, by the mere nature of abortions being legal, it is not a criminal act, so any criminal culpability is nul.

Which leaves a civil suit of...some kind....which exactly? Any suit of that sort should be rightfully thrown out.

Unless you think it's perfectly ok to perform a root canal without dental training, don't try to spout out legal arguments without legal training.

Sue for first degree murder? If you had even the slightest inkling about how our legal system works you'd realize what a nonsensical statement that is.

It would be nice if it could be done but you yourself admit that you don't know how it could be done.

forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is the equivalent of rape. you cannot forcibly control the body of anyone, and that include women. if the courts passed any law like this, it would be the institutionalized rape of all women.

Nice fallacy. However, a case like this will shed light on the other side of the fence. Men who were so happy to be an expectent father and then having that dream dashed because his gf/wife/etc got an abortion.

You think women are the only ones who have emotional problems from this?

Of course not, but abortion is not murder by any definition and the case would collapse immediately (except possibly in Texas).

That's....brilliant.

First off to sue someone is a civil act, first degree murder is a criminal act. You can't sue someone for a criminal act.

Wrongful death suit.

Second, by the mere nature of abortions being legal, it is not a criminal act, so any criminal culpability is nul.

Maybe but then, maybe not.

Which leaves a civil suit of...some kind....which exactly? Any suit of that sort should be rightfully thrown out.

Wrongful death suit.

Unless you think it's perfectly ok to perform a root canal without dental training, don't try to spout out legal arguments without legal training.

Can't compare the two.

Sue for first degree murder? If you had even the slightest inkling about how our legal system works you'd realize what a nonsensical statement that is.

Wrongful death suit.

forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is the equivalent of rape. you cannot forcibly control the body of anyone, and that include women. if the courts passed any law like this, it would be the institutionalized rape of all women.

Agreed.

Of course not, but abortion is not murder by any definition and the case would collapse immediately (except possibly in Texas).

Actually no it wouldn't collapse immediately. You forgot about the power of emotions apparently.

one, that is your opinion about the governments role is. two, im not asking them to help me live my life. im asking them to stop putting up unneccessary obstacles. if you believe in freedom, why can't i be free to marry my girlfriend? if your only objection to homomarriage is that we will suddenly be getting the same tax-breaks as our heterosexual neighbors, you are implying that as homosexuals we deserve less. you are creating yet another oppressed minority.

Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage, in fact I am all for it. Because I believe gay and lesbian have the right to be as mierable as the rest of married people! However, while I have my own views, I do respect the rights of other people who may have a diffrent view. That is basically what state power is all about. It's about people in a state deciding what the state will approve of and don't approve of. Personally I would like to see you marry your girlfriend. When the founding fathers created this country, they envisioned a country where the states are united, but also independent. I mean if federal power forces all state to approve abortion and gay marriage, then what will stop the federal power from forcing the states to do other stuff? Stuff like forcing them to rise their tax rates to 40%. The whole state/federal is a balance act, and we must maintain the balance between the two powers.


perhaps you have the disposable income to move to another state, but i sure dont. telling people to move is an ignorant cop-out of a solution. poverty is a reality and a restriction. i cannot move out of a state simply because my abortion clinic is too far away.

There are 50 states in the Union. Most likely, if Roe Vs. Wade and gay marriage went back to the states, that one of your neighboring state would have gay marriage and abortion.


also, my point about the counseling wasn't that there was counseling, beacuse all states have counseling. but it is the fact that you are required to do it an entire day before you recieve your abortion. therefore, you must take more time off of work. again, poverty restricts this.

I addressed this, the person need time to THINK about it. Comon, do you really want the woman to do something in such a rush that they'll be a chance that she'll regret it later on?


and i dont understand what you mean about "if she is poor do we need her talking about child 6" because that is the point of abortions....

What I ment was that if the person is poor, then why doesn't she pratice some self restraints, or buy some birth controls or condoms. Comon, it's common sense! Abortion should not be used as a birth control method.


again, moving is not an option to a lot of people. moving is actually pretty fucking hard. i remember i had to help my mom move, she only went to a new apartment 1.5 miles down the road and it cost her 3000 dollars.

Jeez did she use professional movers? My brother and his wife moved to a town 50 miles away, they recruited family members to help and they only rented a van. $200 per day and they only used it one day.


and if civil rights aren't a federal issue, we should go back in time and erase that whole "civil rights movement" from the american mind. because if civil rights were a state issue then the south would still be segregated and jim crow would be having a good ol' time lynchin' negros. and dont tell me that i am being unreasonable and going off of stereotypes -- im from south carolina. i know what im talking about.

I'm from North Carolina, and that is sterotypical. I refuse to address this until you remove the stereotypes of Southerners.

Nice fallacy. However, a case like this will shed light on the other side of the fence. Men who were so happy to be an expectent father and then having that dream dashed because his gf/wife/etc got an abortion.

You think women are the only ones who have emotional problems from this?

Not a fallacy in the slightest. You said MURDER CHARGES.

Murder is a CRIMINAL act. c.r.i.m.i.n.a.l. not civil. You can not bring up someone for a CRIMINAL act if no CRIME has been committed. A civil suit, maybe. I suppose it's possible one COULD argue intentional interference with peace of mind if a woman had an abortion knowing it would cause great emotional distress to the father.

Not saying I agree with it, but I can imagine how it might be permissable. I'll give you that.

But really take some basic classes on the structure of our legal system before you spout out any ill informed nonsense.

forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will is the equivalent of rape. you cannot forcibly control the body of anyone, and that include women. if the courts passed any law like this, it would be the institutionalized rape of all women.

So the father should have no say whatsoever?

Wrongful death suit.



Maybe but then, maybe not.



Wrongful death suit.



Can't compare the two.



Wrongful death suit.

Well as the fetus isn't even strictly alive you can hardly call it a wrongful death suit can you?

Anyway, abortion is legal and so you cannot sue a woman for getting one.

That is a good question but the father should also have a say in this issue. After all, it takes 2 to create a new human being, not just one. The father should most definitely have a say in it.


No, he shouldnt.

Once pregnant, its the womans body that will be at risk, not his.
She must endure the painful delivery, not him.
No one has the right to tell a woman if she can, or cannot choose to give birth.

If you take that right away from her, you are depriving her of the most important choice a woman can make in life.

The mans opinion should be heard, but ultimately, his role in producing the child is over.

No one....ever....should have the right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do with ones own body, in particular, childbirth.

Actually no it wouldn't collapse immediately. You forgot about the power of emotions apparently.

Oh for the love of....you don't quit do you.

I repeat. Murder is a criminal act. There can be no criminal charge if there is no criminal act.

The killing of a fetus (and sure I'll call it killing, I don't think you will find much disagreement here that a fetus is technically "alive"), is NOT a criminal act.

Therefore an abortion is not a crime.

IE Roe v. Wade.

So the father should have no say whatsoever?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOU PLAN TO GIVE FATHERS A SAY IN THE MATTER WITHOUT REFERENCE TO STUPID LAWSUITS! YOU'VE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SENSIBLE WAY TO DO SO!

[/rant]

Well as the fetus isn't even strictly alive you can hardly call it a wrongful death suit can you?

Actually yes I can since even Planned Parenthood stated that life begins at conception. Imagine that! I guess pro-choice people forgot about that.

Anyway, abortion is legal and so you cannot sue a woman for getting one.

Yes I can.

you might be privledged and affluent enough to "just move" because you have a disagreement with a policy or two of the government, but not everyone is. congratulations on being a rich bastard, but we all aren't as lucky as you.

First off, I am not rich. Hell I'm middle class. I am just a hard worker. I refuse to just sit on my ass and feel sorry for myself. I also went into a field that everyone in every state need, teachers. So, if you're going to congratulate me, congratulate me on the fact that I am a hard worker, and that I went into a feild where there is heavy demand.


that being said, you have clearly never had an abortion. or been pregnant. and you will never have to deal with that experience. and until you do, you cannot tell anyone what to do. unless they develop some way for the fetus to be transplanted into the male's body, men should stay out of it unless the woman decides to include him in it. although it might make him a little sad, it cannot compare to the emotions that an unwanted pregnancy can bring to a woman. it is the woman's body, the woman's desicion. end of discussion.

Oh that is such bullshit. I mean comon the guy fucked the woman, the guy injected HIS sperm into the woman's body. IT'S HIS CHILD TOO! He should get a say in it TOO!

Well, the woman would have her abortion, and the guy has the right to sue the woman for first degree murder.

Hmm Corneliu has the right responce for this:

*Yawns*

No, he shouldnt.

Once pregnant, its the womans body that will be at risk, not his.
She must endure the painful delivery, not him.
No one has the right to tell a woman if she can, or cannot choose to give birth.

If you take that right away from her, you are depriving her of the most important choice a woman can make in life.

The mans opinion should be heard, but ultimately, his role in producing the child is over.

No one....ever....should have the right to tell anyone else what they can and cannot do with ones own body, in particular, childbirth.

Your such a sad little person now aren't you? Your telling me you would not be upset if your GF got an abortion and didn't tell you? You wouldn't be upset if she got an abortion and you didn't want her too? You wouldn't be upset if your gf wiped out something that you helped create?

I see that morals have no place on this board. I'm glad i'm the way I am. I think I go nuts otherwise.

Oh that is such bullshit. I mean comon the guy fucked the woman, the guy injected HIS sperm into the woman's body. IT'S HIS CHILD TOO! He should get a say in it TOO!

*deep breath* And how do you plan to work this? Please don't make childish references to lawsuits or murder.

Wrongful death suit.



Maybe but then, maybe not.



Wrongful death suit.



Can't compare the two.



Wrongful death suit.

Can't have wrongful death without....let me hear you say it, a death of a person.

Under law a fetus is NOT a person. You can not bring a wrongful death suit for killing that which IS NOT A PERSON.

Let me say it again. The fundamental prima facie case element of a wrongful death suit is that the person being sued was responsibile for the death of A PERSON. And by the legal definition a fetus is not a person. YOu can not, can not, CAN NOT make a successful suit if you dont meet the elements

Moreover, a wrongful death suit not only applies personhood, but there are more legal complications, the nuances of which would obviously be lost in this conversation.

As I said you might, MIGHT, be able to make a case for emotional distress. That's all I can imagine.

Why shouldn't we give her the benifit of the doubt? Just admit that you're anti-abortion and be done with it.

Fine I am pro-life.



But some people couldn't afford the move/couldn't risk losing their job/have to look after family in the area... There are a million reasons why this doesn't work.

Yea, but comon, if you hire professional movers, of course it won't work. However, if you use friends, neighbor, and family and spend as little as possible, then it could work.

Your such a sad little person now aren't you? Your telling me you would not be upset if your GF got an abortion and didn't tell you? You wouldn't be upset if she got an abortion and you didn't want her too? You wouldn't be upset if your gf wiped out something that you helped create?

I see that morals have no place on this board. I'm glad i'm the way I am. I think I go nuts otherwise.

I'd be upset if my girlfriend cheated on me but that doesn't mean I want a law against adultery and cheating. I recognise that it is a personal matter and one that the state doesn't have a right to interfer with.

Oh for the love of....you don't quit do you.

No I don't.

I repeat. Murder is a criminal act. There can be no criminal charge if there is no criminal act.

doesn't prevent me from suing. I can sue you know.

The killing of a fetus (and sure I'll call it killing, I don't think you will find much disagreement here that a fetus is technically "alive"), is NOT a criminal act.

Still doesn't prevent me from suing.

Therefore an abortion is not a crime.

And this can prevent me from suing how?

Actually yes I can since even Planned Parenthood stated that life begins at conception. Imagine that! I guess pro-choice people forgot about that.
.

I must have missed the day in constitional issues that explained why Planned Parenthood is a legislative body.

Or, maybe, JUST maybe, what Planned Parenthood says doesn't hold any legal weight whatsoever.

I could say that I have the right to go shoot george w. in the head. Doesn't mean I really do, now does it?

Yea, but comon, if you hire professional movers, of course it won't work. However, if you use friends, neighbor, and family and spend as little as possible, then it could work.

Well done, you've answered one of the issues.

Next do 'The couple have to look after a sick relative and so can't move away'

I'd be upset if my girlfriend cheated on me but that doesn't mean I want a law against adultery and cheating. I recognise that it is a personal matter and one that the state doesn't have a right to interfer with.

I don't believe you answered the questions I proposed. In fact, you dodged them. Interesting.

No I don't.



doesn't prevent me from suing. I can sue you know.



Still doesn't prevent me from suing.



And this can prevent me from suing how?

Do you know how a lawsuit works?

Lemme explain, briefly. Any cause of action has a prima facie case element list.

IE those things that must be demonstrated to win.

You have to show those elements "more likely than not".

The primary element for a wrongful death suit is "a person was killed".

No legal definition, ANYWHERE, defines a legally aborted fetus as "a person".

Thus there is no way, NO way to show that element. You can not demonstrate a person was killed when there was no person killed.

And dont give me that "a jury can be swayed by emotions" crap, that wouldn't survive the first hint of a summary judgment. Hell it wouldn't even survive a 12(b)(6) motion, or a state equivilent.

That is a good question but the father should also have a say in this issue. After all, it takes 2 to create a new human being, not just one. The father should most definitely have a say in it.

Considering how many fathers don't step up to the plate on the ones that are born says they really don't.

Add in the number that think child support is a ripoff.

You also are making a gigantic assumption that most of the men involved don't want the abortion as well.

I could say that I have the right to go shoot george w. in the head. Doesn't mean I really do, now does it?

Now this is just stupid. No one has the right to kill anyone. Unless it is justifiable homicide but that is only in the case you kill someone who is trying to kill you.

Considering how many fathers don't step up to the plate on the ones that are born says they really don't.

Add in the number that think child support is a ripoff.

You also are making a gigantic assumption that most of the men involved don't want the abortion as well.

The one's that do care are the ones I'm talking about.

First off, I am not rich. Hell I'm middle class. I am just a hard worker. I refuse to just sit on my ass and feel sorry for myself. I also went into a field that everyone in every state need, teachers. So, if you're going to congratulate me, congratulate me on the fact that I am a hard worker, and that I went into a feild where there is heavy demand.

congratulations on being a teacher. i would like to know what district you teach in so that i can be sure not to send my children there. but people who are unwilling to move because they disagree with one or two policies are not sitting on their ass and feeling sorry for themselves. i was unhappy with the abortion laws in my state, so i joined a group. i was unhappy with the policies regarding gay civil rights, so i founded a chapter of pflag. people who move out are admitting defeat and therefore, feeling sorry for themselves. those who choose to stay and fight are the admirable ones. as much as i hate cliches, i honestly believe that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.


Oh that is such bullshit. I mean comon the guy fucked the woman, the guy injected HIS sperm into the woman's body. IT'S HIS CHILD TOO! He should get a say in it TOO!

no. sorry. he shouldn't and unless the woman wants his opinion, he wont be.

when i got my abortion, the guy didn't even know i was pregnant.

Well done, you've answered one of the issues.

Next do 'The couple have to look after a sick relative and so can't move away'

Have family members who live in the area look after the sick relative, or have a friend or neighbor help out. I would not recommend nursing home except at the last resorts, because I worked in nursing homes a while back and they just suck.

I don't like how many(and I mean many) liberals hate opposing viewpoints. It's like conservatives and moderates are their version of heretics. Don't base your arguments on what he might do. Base them on what he already did. What's his judicial record? I don't think he CAN overturn RvW. I don't think he CAN ban gay marraige, even though once you do that, you'd probably encourage weirdos who want to marry cats or cars. I doubt he CAN, let alone wants, to overturn "rights", even though marraige should be just a privilage and not some sort of get rich quick sceme.

You obviously don't pay attention. Conservatives don't exactly love liberal view points. Just mention social security is a great thing and you will see! ;)

Now this is just stupid. No one has the right to kill anyone. Unless it is justifiable homicide but that is only in the case you kill someone who is trying to kill you.

It's broader than that...but you make my point.

Just because I, as a non legislative body say so, it doesn't make it legally true.

Just because Planned Parenthood says a fetus is a person...doesn't make it legally true.

I do not have the power to create law, thus me saying shooting george w. in the head is ok gives it no legal authority what so ever.

Planned Parenthood does not have the power to create law, thus planned parenthood saying a fetus is a person gives it no legal authority what so ever.

Well....

The father can always have the mother who got the abortion up before a court on murder charges.


Well the laws kind of say otherwise.....

I pedicted this exact vote at work.

.

when i got my abortion, the guy didn't even know i was pregnant.

Wow, such dishonesty, I feel sorry for whoever you marry.

Your such a sad little person now aren't you? Your telling me you would not be upset if your GF got an abortion and didn't tell you? You wouldn't be upset if she got an abortion and you didn't want her too? You wouldn't be upset if your gf wiped out something that you helped create?

I see that morals have no place on this board. I'm glad i'm the way I am. I think I go nuts otherwise.

being upset does not give someone the right to control another persons body.

morals are relative.
but controlling another person, against their will, is unethical. and illegal.

You obviously don't pay attention. Conservatives don't exactly love liberal view points. Just mention social security is a great thing and you will see! ;)

Now this, I will agree with you with :D

♫ It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood...♫



Ok don't dirty the memory of Fred by referencing him in politics. He was too decent of a man to be taken that low.

Wow, such dishonesty, I feel sorry for whoever you marry.
Such arrogance and self-righteousness. Do you use those fingers to hold up signs with pictures of dead fetuses outside abortion clinics?

I don't believe you answered the questions I proposed. In fact, you dodged them. Interesting.

Your such a sad little person now aren't you? Your telling me you would not be upset if your GF got an abortion and didn't tell you? You wouldn't be upset if she got an abortion and you didn't want her too? You wouldn't be upset if your gf wiped out something that you helped create?

I see that morals have no place on this board. I'm glad i'm the way I am. I think I go nuts otherwise.

I felt it was obvious what I was saying but if you need it spelling out I will do so: I would be upset in that situation.

However, as I tried to explain in my example, it isn't the role of the state to intervene in the same way that I don't want the state to outlaw adultery and lock away my girlfriend if she cheats on me. I also recognise that she has more rights over her body than I do.

when i got my abortion, the guy didn't even know i was pregnant.

In that case I pity you and feel sorry for the guy that knocked you up. This is what pisses me off most of the time.

The fundemantal problem is this.

It would be certainly nice if both parties had a say.

But, fundamentally, a fetus can not be brought to term outside the mother's body. Given this, any disagreements must end in favor of the side of those who are hosting it.

Which means, even though in an ideal setting it would be nice to reach consensus, you can't. And I have yet to hear a legitimate way of changing that, short of waiting until medical science can do a fetal transplant.

Wow, such dishonesty, I feel sorry for whoever you marry.

well, that wont be happening anytime soon, because i am a lesbian and we dont really have that right yet. my pregnancy resulted from a time of identity-crisis and self-denial.

but come on. the guy was a mexican catholic with plans to move back home. i was not about to move the mexican countryside and be his wife. i have plans for my life, which i am able to achieve due to my choice.

and i dont regret anything about my desicion. AND im not ashamed.

Your such a sad little person now aren't you? Your telling me you would not be upset if your GF got an abortion and didn't tell you? You wouldn't be upset if she got an abortion and you didn't want her too? You wouldn't be upset if your gf wiped out something that you helped create?

I see that morals have no place on this board. I'm glad i'm the way I am. I think I go nuts otherwise.




So, you'd rather flame me instead of actual debate?

Fine.

Would I be upset?
Sure, but thats her right to do so.
No one can make anyone be a parent, if they dont want to.
For you to insist otherwise, pretty much makes you a fascist.
Do you think its allowable for anyone to tell a person who doesnt want to be pregnant, that they have no choice, and must therefore give birth?

Dont pretend you have any kind of morality at all.
You apparently would be fine with anyone taking some of the most important choices in life away from individuals.
This makes you evil.
and probably stupid, and shut apart from most people, alone with your supposed morality, and certainly, bitterness.

Enjoy the rest of you likely lonely life.

No I don't.

doesn't prevent me from suing. I can sue you know.

Still doesn't prevent me from suing.

And this can prevent me from suing how?

Hmmm? I seem to recall in the past a thread or two about frivilous law suits.

The fact that you want to bring up such lawsuits begs the question of your stance on legistlating from the bench.

RvW says abortion is ok. You want to change that; change the laws.

Unless you think legislating from the bench is ok. ;)

The fundemantal problem is this.

It would be certainly nice if both parties had a say.

But, fundamentally, a fetus can not be brought to term outside the mother's body. Given this, any disagreements must end in favor of the side of those who are hosting it.

Which means, even though in an ideal setting it would be nice to reach consensus, you can't. And I have yet to hear a legitimate way of changing that, short of waiting until medical science can do a fetal transplant.

Agreed.

If you want a say in what you're girlfriend does if she gets pregnant then:

1. Talk about it beforehand.
2. Don't come across as the kind of control-freak who'll go beserk if she wants an abortion.

The one's that do care are the ones I'm talking about.

For some reason, I think those numbers are rather small....

Such arrogance and self-righteousness. Do you use those fingers to hold up signs with pictures of dead fetuses outside abortion clinics?

How is it self righteousness for me to want the FATHER to be included in what happens to HIS CHILD, and HE HELP CREATE? How am I aggorant for finding it disgusting that this woman would go behind her boyfriend back and do this, without him knowing it and consulting him? A relationship is a PARTERNSHIP! Apparently we have forgotten that in this society.

The fundemantal problem is this.

It would be certainly nice if both parties had a say.

I'll agree.

But, fundamentally, a fetus can not be brought to term outside the mother's body.

Not entirely true but as of right now, i'll just concede this point.

[uote]Given this, any disagreements must end in favor of the side of those who are hosting it.[/quote]

how about we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

Which means, even though in an ideal setting it would be nice to reach consensus, you can't. And I have yet to hear a legitimate way of changing that, short of waiting until medical science can do a fetal transplant.

That's coming. :D

I pedicted this exact vote at work.

Actually most people thought it was going to happen. I don't want him there but I knew it was going to happen.

Unless you think legislating from the bench is ok. ;)

Nope. That's why I support Strict Constitutionalists. They believe that the Law should be created by the Legislative Branch and that the Judiciary only intervenes after the fact in determining Constitutionality if the Law is challanged.

Oh, guess what Alito & Roberts are... ;)

well, that wont be happening anytime soon, because i am a lesbian and we dont really have that right yet. my pregnancy resulted from a ime of identity-crisis and self-denial.

Well, I hope you tell your girlfriend what happened, just in case you two would want a love child.


but come on. the guy was a mexican catholic with plans to move back home. i was not about to move the mexican countryside and be his wife. i have plans for my life, which i am able to achieve due to my choice.

So, you just decided to completely ignore his feelings, and his though, and his opnion and said to hell with him? Don't you DARE preach to me about equal rights EVER again. What you just typed proves to me that you are not a friend of equal rights.


and i dont regret anything about my desicion. AND im not ashamed.

Famous last words.

How is it self righteousness for me to want the FATHER to be included in what happens to HIS CHILD, and HE HELP CREATE? How am I aggorant for finding it disgusting that this woman would go behind her boyfriend back and do this, without him knowing it and consulting him? A relationship is a PARTERNSHIP! Apparently we have forgotten that in this society.

And I ask you (yet again) how do you intend to give the father a say without letting him overrule the mother or making his views powerless.

Well guys, it's been a good run.

I guess a righwing Christian dictatorship won't be that bad... I mean the Christian States of America has a ring to it, and I've always wanted a telescreen.

How is it self righteousness for me to want the FATHER to be included in what happens to HIS CHILD, and HE HELP CREATE? How am I aggorant for finding it disgusting that this woman would go behind her boyfriend back and do this, without him knowing it and consulting him? A relationship is a PARTERNSHIP! Apparently we have forgotten that in this society.

what makes you think we were in a relationship? of course i would tell someone that i was in a relationship. he was a coworker who i thought was a cutie. he had a cute accent. it was a short term affair, i was moving away a month after is started. he was moving out of the country 2 months later. it was pure oppurtunity. who cares?

And I ask you (yet again) how do you intend to give the father a say without letting him overrule the mother or making his views powerless.

Simple, The woman becomes pregent, and she thinks about abortion. The couple sits down in the privacy of their own home. They write down the pros and cons of abortion, and they come to a decision. Like, a woman can abort this child, but the next she cannot. It's called compromise.

How am I aggorant for finding it disgusting that this woman would go behind her boyfriend back and do this, without him knowing it and consulting him?

Yup you are a conservative and probably a christian too eh?

Hmm did you even think the woman had a reason she couldn't approach the male over this?

Just because you can knock up a woman; doesn't make you a man.

what makes you think we were in a relationship? of course i would tell someone that i was in a relationship. he was a coworker who i thought was a cutie. he had a cute accent. it was a short term affair, i was moving away a month after is started. he was moving out of the country 2 months later. it was pure oppurtunity. who cares?

Wow, I feel sorry for your girlfriend. I hope she'll be the one getting pregent.

Well, I hope you tell your girlfriend what happened, just in case you two would want a love child.

oh i would. no reason not to.



So, you just decided to completely ignore his feelings, and his though, and his opnion and said to hell with him? Don't you DARE preach to me about equal rights EVER again. What you just typed proves to me that you are not a friend of equal rights.


i didnt ignore them. i just never bothered to get them. we agreed when i moved to give it up. there was no point in trying to continue a relationship between Massachuessetts, US and Puebla, Mexico.


Famous last words.
actually yes, they are my last. because ive got to leave for work now.

nice chatting with you fellows about women's issues. good to know that there are men out there who respect women enough to agree they are able to make desicions about their own bodies!!

Yup you are a conservative and probably a christian too eh?

Hmm did you even think the woman had a reason she couldn't approach the male over this?

Just because you can knock up a woman; doesn't make you a man.

She did state her reason, not a very good one apparently. While that is true, a woman should still give the male part a right to have a say. Now THAT is equal rights.

Simple, The woman becomes pregent, and she thinks about abortion. The couple sits down in the privacy of their own home. They write down the pros and cons of abortion, and they come to a decision. Like, a woman can abort this child, but the next she cannot. It's called compromise.

Which doesn't require legislation...which is what I've been saying all along...

She did state her reason, not a very good one apparently. While that is true, a woman should still give the male part a right to have a say. Now THAT is equal rights.

Such angst is not simply over her. You are speaking in general.

Guess what?

Most men that have a right to have a say in the matter are consulted by the woman.

She did state her reason, not a very good one apparently. While that is true, a woman should still give the male part a right to have a say. Now THAT is equal rights.

But either the man's say overrules the woman's (which is clearly unfair) or her's overrules his (in which case his views are irrelevant). It doesn't work.

When a child is concieved, it has 50% of it's genetic makeup from the mother and 50% from the father.
Men should have a say, but ultimately it is the woman's right.


:fluffle:

When a child is concieved, it has 50% of it's genetic makeup from the mother and 50% from the father.
Men should have a say, but ultimately it is the woman's right.


:fluffle:

Agreed.

Simple, The woman becomes pregent, and she thinks about abortion. The couple sits down in the privacy of their own home. They write down the pros and cons of abortion, and they come to a decision. Like, a woman can abort this child, but the next she cannot. It's called compromise.

Sure, compromise is great.

It's also a private act, a decision reached between individual parties.

Those who say the father should have a say..great...how? There's no way to get half an abortion, no way to legally enforce a compromise.

Either the fetus gets aborted, or it does not. Either it's the woman's right to say, or it's not.

There is no way to LEGALLY give the father a "say" in the matter, if there's a disagreement, one party's desires must trump the other. And the choice should always lie with the party carrying it, until, as I said, they can viably remove the fetus and still develop it by some outside means.

How is it self righteousness for me to want the FATHER to be included in what happens to HIS CHILD, and HE HELP CREATE? How am I aggorant for finding it disgusting that this woman would go behind her boyfriend back and do this, without him knowing it and consulting him? A relationship is a PARTERNSHIP! Apparently we have forgotten that in this society.

It's self righteous and arrogant because you assume every man who gets a woman knocked up will be a responsible and moral individual and provide for that woman and their child instead of cutting off the relationship and hightailing it out of there. Why else would the child support collection industry be thriving as a business?

And furthermore, if the United States as a whole were willing to accept children of any age and race for adoption instead of holding out for the Perfect White Anglo-Saxon Baby then abortion wouldn't be in such demand amongst women who can't afford to take care of their children.

One more thing, if you think the Fundies will be happy just criminalizing convenient birth control abortions, then you're in for a shock. Unless you get off on watching women die of complications from medically hazardous pregnancies.

How is it self righteousness for me to want the FATHER to be included in what happens to HIS CHILD, and HE HELP CREATE?
Possibly the same fathers who would escape to other states upon birth and create new identities to keep from paying child support.

How am I aggorant for finding it disgusting that this woman would go behind her boyfriend back and do this, without him knowing it and consulting him? A relationship is a PARTERNSHIP!
So? You assume there is a "relationship" of any definable nature.

Apparently we have forgotten that in this society.
And you have forgotten that individuals don't have the right to tell other individuals what to do. You arn't the government and no one gives a fuck about your personal beliefs and morals. You do what you will do and other people will do what they will do.

Explain to me how this would work, if the two were in disagreement who would have the final say?

How about we ask the baby as a tie breaker?

Okay, let's just put all of this to rest:

Abortion:
I don't agree with it, but women have the right to choose. It is, afterall, their body. Now, would I be royally pissed off if my wife went and got an abortion without me even knowing she was pregnant, yes I would. The father should always be consulted, but there are always situations when they shouldn't. Ultimately, it is the woman's choice, and if she chooses not to tell him, then there is probably a good reason for it. Requiring the consent of the father opens the doors to forcing the woman to have the child.

Gay Marriage(since it was brought up earlier):
Allow it in all states. There is NO good reason not too! It will NOT cause the collapse of the traditional "American Family", homosexuals are NOT morally deprived, and to even bring a subjective thing like morals into the argument leaves it open to biases.

Alito:
This guy has proven to be on the side of big business. Certainly, this is a rather subjective statement, and I'm sure that there are cases that can be brought up that will prove this wrong. However, 4 Republican Justices, 1 "Swing", and 3 Democrats will obviously result in a shift to the conservative Right. An equal ratio would be ideal, and I would say this even if there were more Democrats. I fear that this appointment will simply lead a "Tyranny of the Majority". Just because the majority of people, however slight, agree with one position, that doesn't mean that the minority should be completely ignored.

:cool:

How about we ask the baby as a tie breaker?

:p

The father should always be consulted, but there are always situations when they shouldn't.
Is that you Dan Quayle?

Is that you Dan Quayle?
I'm not sure.
I thought for sure that Kerry was channeling Quayle, especially after he states that he's against domestic surveillance, but will vote to continue to fund it.

I'm not sure.
I thought for sure that Kerry was channeling Quayle, especially after he states that he's against domestic surveillance, but will vote to continue to fund it.
I said Dan Quayle, not troll under the bridge.

Is that you Dan Quayle?

Dan Quayle?:confused:

Dan Quayle?:confused:

Eww pantless don't you feel old! ;)

Random: Quayle as in "P-O-T-A-T-O-E" He was the VP under Poppy Bush....

It's self righteous and arrogant because you assume every man who gets a woman knocked up will be a responsible and moral individual and provide for that woman and their child instead of cutting off the relationship and hightailing it out of there. Why else would the child support collection industry be thriving as a business?


agreed.

but lets not forget the basic underlying fact that is often ignored: SOMETIMES WOMEN DON'T WANT CHILDREN.

I know it is shocking, since women have been strongarmed into a position of domestic docility for so long, where their only role was to further the human race by popping out a new kid every few years or so. but times have changed. the pill was invented. the sexual revolution happened. the feminist movement happened. women like to have sex and women like to have jobs. women still bear the majority of the responsibility when it comes to raising a child (while there are many men who do a fabulous job, and i salute them) and unless she WANTS to be a stay-at home mom, she will suffer a certain amoung of setbacks to her other plans if she carries a pregnancy to fullterm.

IF a woman is in a fair and balanced relationship, it would be fair to the man that she consult him, or at least inform him of her plans. IF she was knocked up during a one-night stand or brief affair, i do not think that she has any sort of ethical or moral obligation to inform him. doesn't matter if he would be willing to pay child support or even adopt the baby after its birth. she will have to carry the child for 9 months, deal with all of the complications and time off from work. for at least a year her plans will have to go on hold. and just because women have the ability to give life does not mean they have the OBLIGATION to.

sometimes women just dont want kids, and thats the end of the story.

Is that you Dan Quayle?

Nope, not Dan Quayle...though I am insulted by your comparison.

All I meant by saying that the father should be consulted is that this is ideally how things would go. A healthy relationship has an open dialog between the two individuals. The mother of the child should feel completely comfortable talking to the father about her concerns and desire to have the child. Obviously, this is not the case in almost all relationships.

Basically, I'm just saying that it's the woman's choice, and talking to the father should be at her discretion(though it should be encouraged). Also, counseling before and after the abortion should always be provided, but optional.