NationStates Jolt Archive

You'll get to see if you've gotten what you paid for in Alito before too long (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11115610/):

Two federal appeals courts on opposite sides of the country declared the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying the measure is vague and lacks an exception for cases in which a woman’s health is at stake.

The first ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued a similar decision, affirming a 2004 ruling by a judge who upheld the right to perform a type of late-term abortion even as he described the procedure as “gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.”

The law, signed in 2003, banned a procedure known to doctors as intact dilation and extraction and called partial-birth abortion by abortion foes. The fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
The article notes that a third circuit court ruled on it last year, so that's three circuits. Now the question is whether or not the Court grants cert to hear the appeal. If they do, that may mean that they're getting ready to reexamine Casey, if not Roe itself. If they deny it, well, does anyone really think they'll deny it?

My one bump rule in effect. :D

They wont, but I'd wish they would. Pro-choice my ass. The choice is 9 months before the baby is born. You know what will happen. Thats the choice you make.

Stenberg v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830), 530 U.S. 914 (2000)

The Supreme Court has already held a similar ban on partial birth abortions by Nebraksa to be unconstitutional.

Surely the "conservative" "non-activist" Justices won't seek to overturn not only Stenberg, but Casey (1992) and Roe (1973). :eek:

Gentelmen, take out your coat hangers. To the back-alleys!

Stenberg v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830), 530 U.S. 914 (2000)

The Supreme Court has already held a similar ban on partial birth abortions by Nebraksa to be unconstitutional.

Surely the "conservative" "non-activist" Justices won't seek to overturn not only Stenberg, but Casey (1992) and Roe (1973). :eek:
Ah--Stenberg. That's right. So whaddya think? Will Roberts and Alito team up with Scalia and Thomas to push this thing? It's the incrementalist way to go about it--kill Roe slowly without ever actually overturning it. Alito seems like a bomb-thrower to me though.

Gentelmen, take out your coat hangers. To the back-alleys!
Rubbish.
Back alley abortion doctors don’t use coat hangers, they use unsanitary scapels and such.
You're thinking of desperate pregnant teenagers.

Ah--Stenberg. That's right. So whaddya think? Will Roberts and Alito team up with Scalia and Thomas to push this thing? It's the incrementalist way to go about it--kill Roe slowly without ever actually overturning it. Alito seems like a bomb-thrower to me though.

We've still only got 4 reliable votes - and that's assuming Roberts goes the way everyone assumes he will.

Unless there's a plurality opinion, I still don't think we've got the votes to overturn Casey or Roe.

Rubbish.
Back alley abortion doctors don’t use coat hangers, they use unsanitary scapels and such.
You're thinking of desperate pregnant teenagers.


Eh, you're right, I just wanted to stuff it all into a few words.

Ah--Stenberg. That's right. So whaddya think? Will Roberts and Alito team up with Scalia and Thomas to push this thing? It's the incrementalist way to go about it--kill Roe slowly without ever actually overturning it. Alito seems like a bomb-thrower to me though.


Ailto is definitely a bomb-thrower. He, Scalia, and Thomas are activists.

I'm not sure about Roberts. He may respect precedent.

Kennedy would be the interesting vote. He dissented the first time, but he has a respect for precedent. He may not go along with a reversal. (And he won't go along with reversing Casey and Roe.) Casey was partly Kennedy's decision. He agreed with preserving Roe.

Since Casey, the Court has lost O'Connor and Blackmun from the pro-Roe side. But they also lost Burger and White from the dissent.

Luckily they need 5 votes to overturn Roe. So long as Kennedy holds to Casey, they don't have 'em.

Ailto is definitely a bomb-thrower. He, Scalia, and Thomas are activists.

I'm not sure about Roberts. He may respect precedent.

Kennedy would be the interesting vote. He dissented the first time, but he has a respect for precedent. He may not go along with a reversal. (And he won't go along with reversing Casey and Roe.) Casey was partly Kennedy's decision. He agreed with preserving Roe.

Since Casey, the Court has lost O'Connor and Blackmun from the pro-Roe side. But they also lost Burger and White from the dissent.

Luckily they need 5 votes to overturn Roe. So long as Kennedy holds to Casey, they don't have 'em.
Can I just tell you that I'm really uneasy about having to depend on Kennedy for anything?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it takes four justices to grant cert.

In any case, my understanding always was that Casey overturned/modified Roe, and in any case, a ban on 'partial birth' abortion, would not substantially effect abortion rights, because such a thing did not exist anyway. (Or if it did, it happened so rarely to be of little account.)

Anyway, these things should be in the hands of the legislature, not the courts.

Can I just tell you that I'm really uneasy about having to depend on Kennedy for anything?

Kennedy has mellowed out quite a bit since he joined the court. I don't know if he would be willing to join the four solid conservatives on a reversal of Roe.

Precedent should only be respected if the law that underlies it is solid. Roe is bad law. Whether or not you believe abortion should be legal, Roe needs to be reversed. The states should have the ability to regulate abortion as they see fit.

They wont, but I'd wish they would. Pro-choice my ass. The choice is 9 months before the baby is born. You know what will happen. Thats the choice you make.
I do believe abortion to be killing a human afte the heart starts beating. THat being said, Roe v. Wade established a womans right to choose. It's not illegal, and with 5 pro-roe justices on the Supreme Court right now, it's unlikely that anything will change.

Salaam.

Kennedy has mellowed out quite a bit since he joined the court. I don't know if he would be willing to join the four solid conservatives on a reversal of Roe.

Precedent should only be respected if the law that underlies it is solid. Roe is bad law. Whether or not you believe abortion should be legal, Roe needs to be reversed. The states should have the ability to regulate abortion as they see fit.
What makes you think this will go back to the states if Roe goes? This Congress would pass a federal abortion ban so quick it would make heads spin, and as we've seen from the Alito hearings, the so called pro-choice Republicans would probably vote for it.

They wont, but I'd wish they would. Pro-choice my ass. The choice is 9 months before the baby is born. You know what will happen. Thats the choice you make.
Dilation and extraction procedures are sometimes necessary to save a woman's life. Hell, half of them are preformed on fetuses that are already dead in the womb.
And choosing to have sex does not mean choosing to have a baby.

What makes you think this will go back to the states if Roe goes? This Congress would pass a federal abortion ban so quick it would make heads spin, and as we've seen from the Alito hearings, the so called pro-choice Republicans would probably vote for it.

What about that lawful sucide ruling in Oregon?

Anyway, this simply highlights the problem with rulings like Roe.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it takes four justices to grant cert.

IIRC, you are correct.

In any case, my understanding always was that Casey overturned/modified Roe,

Casey modified, but upheld the basic principles of Roe. A key part of the holding was that Roe was protected by stare decisis.

and in any case, a ban on 'partial birth' abortion, would not substantially effect abortion rights, because such a thing did not exist anyway. (Or if it did, it happened so rarely to be of little account.)

Two problems arise. (Both identified in Stenberg.)

1. Because there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion" laws trying to ban it tend to be vague and/or end up banning a wide range of abortion procedures including those most commonly used in the first trimester.

2. The rare abortions that tend to be described as "partial birth abortions" are necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother.

Anyway, these things should be in the hands of the legislature, not the courts.

Our fundamental Constitutional rights must be protected by the Courts. That is Marbury v. Madison (1803). Our reproductive rights are fundamental Constitutional rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, they must be protected by the Courts when the legislature errs.

What about that lawful sucide ruling in Oregon?

Anyway, this simply highlights the problem with rulings like Roe.

WTF?

The fact that rights are sometimes controversial is the problem with Roe?

What makes you think this will go back to the states if Roe goes? This Congress would pass a federal abortion ban so quick it would make heads spin, and as we've seen from the Alito hearings, the so called pro-choice Republicans would probably vote for it.

Because a federal abortion ban won't pass the Senate - you'd see actual filibusters, not just procedural ones, before you saw that passed.

Even if it would, I don't believe that the kind of conservative Supreme Court that would be necessary to overturn Roe would allow that kind of an overreach from the federal government. There's not even a remote chance that abortion has anything to do with interstate commerce, and I hope that court continues the path it started down with Lopez in smacking down federal overreaching.

Abortion is, in my opinion, a state issue. The states should have the authority to regulate abortion as they see fit. That way, those states with populations who want it legal may keep it legal, and those states who don't want it legal can ban it. Having this decision made at a federal level is bad policy and that authority should go back to the states.

The real problem with Roe is that it's on shaky legal grounding. It's a precedent by virtue of being upheld by other cases, but the foundation of a Right to Privacy doesn't truly exist anywhere.

That being said, the Partial Birth Bans do not tread any Roe ground, but it does stamp all over Casey. Since Casey has been upheld by previous courts, I don't see how the court could rule any way but to send the law back to Congress for modification.

However, Casey is very ambigious in its restriction for health of the mother. I think that needs to be redefined by Congress and see what definitions will pass Constitutional muster.

However, I will disagree with the idea that choosing to have sex does not mean choosing to have a baby. Choosing to have sex should come with understanding of the drawbacks, and if you can't accept any of the drawbacks then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. There's much safer methods of sexual expression.

What about that lawful sucide ruling in Oregon?

Anyway, this simply highlights the problem with rulings like Roe.
Well, for all his blather about being an originalist, Scalia is a very results-based justice, and I have little doubt that he would find a way to uphold a federal ban. For all I know, he could help write the damn thing on the side.

Because a federal abortion ban won't pass the Senate - you'd see actual filibusters, not just procedural ones, before you saw that passed.

Even if it would, I don't believe that the kind of conservative Supreme Court that would be necessary to overturn Roe would allow that kind of an overreach from the federal government. There's not even a remote chance that abortion has anything to do with interstate commerce, and I hope that court continues the path it started down with Lopez in smacking down federal overreaching.

Abortion is, in my opinion, a state issue. The states should have the authority to regulate abortion as they see fit. That way, those states with populations who want it legal may keep it legal, and those states who don't want it legal can ban it. Having this decision made at a federal level is bad policy and that authority should go back to the states.

Come now. The whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process is to take these things out of the hands of "policy" let alone the hands of the states.

BTW, are you saying the current federal law banning partial birth abortion is unconstitutional under Lopez?

However, I will disagree with the idea that choosing to have sex does not mean choosing to have a baby. Choosing to have sex should come with understanding of the drawbacks, and if you can't accept any of the drawbacks then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. There's much safer methods of sexual expression.
Well then, choosing to ski must also mean choosing to have a broken leg then? By choosing to skit one must understand the potential drawbacks of skiing and thus be willing to live with a leg that doesn't set right if you can't accept these risks then you shouldn't be skiing. There are much safer ways to have fun.

However, I will disagree with the idea that choosing to have sex does not mean choosing to have a baby. Choosing to have sex should come with understanding of the drawbacks, and if you can't accept any of the drawbacks then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. There's much safer methods of sexual expression.


Choosing to have sex does not mean choosing to have a baby. Choosing to have sex, getting pregnant, then deciding to stay so until you give birth to a baby, is choosing to have a baby.

Because a federal abortion ban won't pass the Senate - you'd see actual filibusters, not just procedural ones, before you saw that passed.

Considering it passed the 2003 Senate with a vote of 64 to 34, and passed other, less Right leaning Senates, before the 2003 vote, I do not think there will be much bluster. The Democrats simply do not have enough power to sway votes in this Senate.

There are a lot of people who are pro-choice, yet against this specific procedure, and there's enough of them in the Senate to halt any filibuster.

The real problem with Roe is that it's on shaky legal grounding. It's a precedent by virtue of being upheld by other cases, but the foundation of a Right to Privacy doesn't truly exist anywhere.

That being said, the Partial Birth Bans do not tread any Roe ground, but it does stamp all over Casey. Since Casey has been upheld by previous courts, I don't see how the court could rule any way but to send the law back to Congress for modification.

However, Casey is very ambigious in its restriction for health of the mother. I think that needs to be redefined by Congress and see what definitions will pass Constitutional muster.

However, I will disagree with the idea that choosing to have sex does not mean choosing to have a baby. Choosing to have sex should come with understanding of the drawbacks, and if you can't accept any of the drawbacks then you should not engage in sexual intercourse. There's much safer methods of sexual expression.

If people want to debate the merits of Roe, we can do so. I'm saddened that there is so little understanding of the right to privacy. It was firmly established in Griswold. It is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Well then, choosing to ski must also mean choosing to have a broken leg then? By choosing to skit one must understand the potential drawbacks of skiing and thus be willing to live with a leg that doesn't set right if you can't accept these risks then you shouldn't be skiing. There are much safer ways to have fun.

Yes, you're right. And that's one of many reasons I don't ski, or play football professionally, or drive my car at 120 MPH. I see nothing fundamentally flawed with the logic, or your supposed counter-argument which would render my statement false.

Choosing to have sex does not mean choosing to have a baby. Choosing to have sex, getting pregnant, then deciding to stay so until you give birth to a baby, is choosing to have a baby.

That's not what I said at all. I invite you to reread my statement, and not to put words in my mouth.

Considering it passed the 2003 Senate with a vote of 64 to 34, and passed other, less Right leaning Senates, before the 2003 vote, I do not think there will be much bluster. The Democrats simply do not have enough power to sway votes in this Senate.

There are a lot of people who are pro-choice, yet against this specific procedure, and there's enough of them in the Senate to halt any filibuster.

The problem is there is no such "specific procedure" in medicine, so you can't pass a law banning it. Attempts to do so are overbroad.

Yes, you're right. And that's one of many reasons I don't ski, or play football professionally, or drive my car at 120 MPH. I see nothing fundamentally flawed with the logic, or your supposed counter-argument which would render my statement false.
So if you choose to drive a car (obeying all traffic laws or not) and get in an accident, you should be denied medical attention? If you choose to chop veggies for dinner and accidently nearly amputate your finger, the doctors should refuse to stitch you up?

Come now. The whole point of the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process is to take these things out of the hands of "policy" let alone the hands of the states.

BTW, are you saying the current federal law banning partial birth abortion is unconstitutional under Lopez?

The whole point of the 14th amendment is to ensure that the states won't attempt to pass laws that create defacto segregation of different portions of the population by denying due process and equal protection to everyone. It wasn't designed to say that the states aren't competent to make policy. It just recognizes that at the time of its adoption, some states were more inclined to discriminate against their citizens than others.

And yes, in my opinion, the federal partial birth abortion ban should be considered unconstitutional under Lopez. The decision to ban or regulate partial birth abortion should reside with the states.

The whole point of the 14th amendment is to ensure that the states won't attempt to pass laws that create defacto segregation of different portions of the population by denying due process and equal protection to everyone. It wasn't designed to say that the states aren't competent to make policy. It just recognizes that at the time of its adoption, some states were more inclined to discriminate against their citizens than others.

And yes, in my opinion, the federal partial birth abortion ban should be considered unconstitutional under Lopez. The decision to ban or regulate partial birth abortion should reside with the states.

You've confused the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. They have different meanings. You scrunch them into something lesser than either one.

I'll let the Supreme Court do a little explaining for me:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, [d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968). It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 -92 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). But of course this Court has never accepted that view.

... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life


--Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html)

Considering it passed the 2003 Senate with a vote of 64 to 34, and passed other, less Right leaning Senates, before the 2003 vote, I do not think there will be much bluster. The Democrats simply do not have enough power to sway votes in this Senate.

There are a lot of people who are pro-choice, yet against this specific procedure, and there's enough of them in the Senate to halt any filibuster.

The partial-birth abortion ban was passed, not a complete ban. If you honestly think that Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein or any of the hardcore pro-choice Democrats wouldn't fight against a full-scale abortion ban as hard as the southern Democrats fought against the Voting Rights Act, you aren't listening to what they say.

If people want to debate the merits of Roe, we can do so. I'm saddened that there is so little understanding of the right to privacy. It was firmly established in Griswold. It is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Considering Griswold cited the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, the Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the right to privacy. It simply states that previous expressed rights of any citizen cannot be taken away by laws.

Only the Ninth Amendment truly applies in Griswold, which says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Griswold simply interpreted that a right to privacy exists, and it does in certain facets of life. For instance, the Government is not able to deny us privileges over our persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures.

The first amendment enumerates our right to express ourselves, but expression has limits, which crimes like Slander and Libel testify to.

The true problem in all this, which does not affect other countries like Britain, is that abortion has not been settled by public vote. I would love to see state referendums make the decision and letting the populace of the country decide what is best for them instead of leaving the decision to ivory tower men in black robes.

You've confused the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. They have different meanings. You scrunch them into something lesser than either one.

No, I haven't. Clause 1 says "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The amendment ensured that the state governments were held to the same standard as the federal government was held by the 5th amendment. Prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment, the states weren't held to the same standard. They COULD deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process and they COULD deny equal protection, subject to their own state Constitutions. Afterwards, they couldn't.

I don't think it's too much to ask that this kind of authority be placed in the hands of the people - and that states are much more responsive to the needs of their own citizens than the federal government is.

In the end, I believe the issue of abortion is more an issue of federalism than anything else.

So if you choose to drive a car (obeying all traffic laws or not) and get in an accident, you should be denied medical attention? If you choose to chop veggies for dinner and accidently nearly amputate your finger, the doctors should refuse to stitch you up?

Now you're just being unreasonable. Medical attention to save my life, or the life of any person, cannot be denied. Casey itself ruled on this in the specific case of abortion, and it's why the Ban did not pass Constitutional muster.

The problem is there is no such "specific procedure" in medicine, so you can't pass a law banning it. Attempts to do so are overbroad.

Actually, the law passed by Congress does have a specific procedure. I'll quote here for the purpose of our discussion:

(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion--an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child's body until either the entire baby's head is outside the body of the mother, or any part of the baby's trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back of the child's skull and removing the baby's brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant, performs this act, and then completes delivery of the dead infant--is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.

Since it defines what the law considers a Partial Birth Abortion procedure, you can now act on that procedure.

Now you're just being unreasonable. Medical attention to save my life, or the life of any person, cannot be denied. Casey itself ruled on this in the specific case of abortion, and it's why the Ban did not pass Constitutional muster.
You can live with a detached finger...

No, I haven't. Clause 1 says "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The amendment ensured that the state governments were held to the same standard as the federal government was held by the 5th amendment. Prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment, the states weren't held to the same standard. They COULD deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process and they COULD deny equal protection, subject to their own state Constitutions. Afterwards, they couldn't.

I don't think it's too much to ask that this kind of authority be placed in the hands of the people - and that states are much more responsive to the needs of their own citizens than the federal government is.

In the end, I believe the issue of abortion is more an issue of federalism than anything else.

Again, you ignore the existence of fundamental liberties protected from the hands of the people by the 5th and 14th Amendment.

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).

You can live with a detached finger...

Sure...but I can't live with the open wound the act of detaching it created considering I'll be losing more blood than my body can handle. The idea isn't saving the finger, but the body the finger was attached to.

Actually, the law passed by Congress does have a specific procedure. I'll quote here for the purpose of our discussion:



Since it defines what the law considers a Partial Birth Abortion procedure, you can now act on that procedure.

I think you'll find such a definition was found vague and unconstitutional in Stenberg. That is why 3 Circuits have already held the law unconstitutional.

Sure...but I can't live with the open wound the act of detaching it created considering I'll be losing more blood than my body can handle. The idea isn't saving the finger, but the body the finger was attached to.
Well, you won't lose that much blood and you should have thought about that before you started chopping up food for your dinner.

Sure...but I can't live with the open wound the act of detaching it created considering I'll be losing more blood than my body can handle. The idea isn't saving the finger, but the body the finger was attached to.

So you are granting that you "deserve" to lose the finger because you made that "choice"?

Again, you ignore the existence of fundamental liberties protected from the hands of the people by the 5th and 14th Amendment.

I fully recognize the existence of the fundamental liberties outlined there. My point, as I've said before, is that Roe (via Casey) is the standard that includes abortion as one of those fundamental liberties. If Casey and Roe are overturned, then the "fundamental liberty" of abortion will no longer be recognized as a fundamental liberty, and may be regulated by the states.

That's what I want to see. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that abortion will be banned entirely in the country. But what I do believe is that the people should be able to regulate it on a state by state basis.

Abortion will most likely always be legal in the United States, no matter how hard some may try to change that. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated or banned in certain places, if that is the will of the people of that state.

A question for a Alito supporters: Is this guy seriously going to invariably uphold the spirit and letter of the Constitution, whether it's over gay marriage bans or environmental litigation, and respect case law? I know they all say they will, and that in general their proponents say so too while thinking to themselves "He'd better not", but can I get a straight answer? Are we looking at a responsible, respectful, truly non-activist justice, if not a balanced or centrist one?

Again, you ignore the existence of fundamental liberties protected from the hands of the people by the 5th and 14th Amendment.

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):

<snipped quote>

Excellent point, I'd forgotten about that passage, even though I used it in an argument not too long ago about how the rights of homosexuals to marry was already inherent to the Constitution by virtue of the Fourteenth amendment.

However, note that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban does not get struck down for limiting the rights of women to receive an abortion, but for not including exceptions necessary under Casey.

I fully recognize the existence of the fundamental liberties outlined there. My point, as I've said before, is that Roe (via Casey) is the standard that includes abortion as one of those fundamental liberties. If Casey and Roe are overturned, then the "fundamental liberty" of abortion will no longer be recognized as a fundamental liberty, and may be regulated by the states.

That's what I want to see. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that abortion will be banned entirely in the country. But what I do believe is that the people should be able to regulate it on a state by state basis.

Abortion will most likely always be legal in the United States, no matter how hard some may try to change that. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be regulated or banned in certain places, if that is the will of the people of that state.
You know, if it hadn't been explicitly mentioned in the 13th(?) Amendment, you could make the same argument about slavery. They're dealing with the same fundamental logic--the right of self-determination.

Maybe we do need to get on that right to privacy amendment just to keep this shit from cropping up every time there's a Justice to be replaced.

A question for a Alito supporters: Is this guy seriously going to invariably uphold the spirit and letter of the Constitution, whether it's over gay marriage bans or environmental litigation, and respect case law? I know they all say they will, and that in general their proponents say so too while thinking to themselves "He'd better not", but can I get a straight answer? Are we looking at a responsible, respectful, truly non-activist justice, if not a balanced or centrist one?

I think that Alito will approach each case with an open and educated mind. That's all I ask of him.

I hope that he will uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution, but those are subjective things.

I don't care if he respects case law, because stare decisis isn't a hard and fast rule. If previous case law is bad, it should be overturned.

I don't want the court making policy or legislating from the bench. Political issues are best left to the legislature, not the courts. If he's willing to accept that and faithful execute the office, I don't think any of us can ask for anything more from him.

I do believe abortion to be killing a human afte the heart starts beating. THat being said, Roe v. Wade established a womans right to choose. It's not illegal, and with 5 pro-roe justices on the Supreme Court right now, it's unlikely that anything will change.

Salaam.


Thats the thing. When is it considered a live? From conception really... there are these 4 requirements for something to be alive. Geeze, its been awhile since ive seen them. But pretty much, it works to a point. As soon as conception happens, its considered as alive as a toddler. But, technically, by the 4 rules, a toddler isnt exactly alive. A toddler cannot reproduce yet. Nor can the unborn baby, so then technically, both arent actually alive. But a toddler is, so why isnt the unborn baby? Womans rights? Yeah it is. Womans rights for the dumb ones who didnt think about the consequences. The baby has right too ya know! Just cause it cant talk doesnt mean it cant have rights. Again, a toddler cant really execise its rights, mainly cause it doesnt understand it. Have you ever heard of ANY woman who said they would abort again after they had one? No. Why not?

So you are granting that you "deserve" to lose the finger because you made that "choice"?

At what point did I ever use the word "deserve"? You're setting up a straw-man argument by putting words I did not use in my mouth.

You know, if it hadn't been explicitly mentioned in the 13th(?) Amendment, you could make the same argument about slavery. They're dealing with the same fundamental logic--the right of self-determination.

Maybe we do need to get on that right to privacy amendment just to keep this shit from cropping up every time there's a Justice to be replaced.

That's the reason why the 13th amendment existed. Slavery WAS legal AND protected under the Constitution until it was passed.

I think adding a right to privacy amendment would solve some of these issues, but unless you define "privacy", you're just going to open up an even bigger can of worms.

A question for a Alito supporters: Is this guy seriously going to invariably uphold the spirit and letter of the Constitution, whether it's over gay marriage bans or environmental litigation, and respect case law? I know they all say they will, and that in general their proponents say so too while thinking to themselves "He'd better not", but can I get a straight answer? Are we looking at a responsible, respectful, truly non-activist justice, if not a balanced or centrist one?
I was going to answer this, then remembered the caveat at the top. Sorry.

A question for a Alito supporters: Is this guy seriously going to invariably uphold the spirit and letter of the Constitution, whether it's over gay marriage bans or environmental litigation, and respect case law? I know they all say they will, and that in general their proponents say so too while thinking to themselves "He'd better not", but can I get a straight answer? Are we looking at a responsible, respectful, truly non-activist justice, if not a balanced or centrist one?

I trust he will decided cases as he sees fit, taking into account previous court rulings and his educated interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.

However, I find this argument interesting considering that when Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg, someone who had voiced frank ideas, specifically on abortion, and yet she was confirmed by a 96 to 3 vote.

The brouhaha over Alito is just the left's latest example of how they must serve as counterpoint against everything Bush says. If he comes out and states the sky was blue, I would not be surprised to see the left in an uproar and arguing the sky is clearly black.

That's the reason why the 13th amendment existed. Slavery WAS legal AND protected under the Constitution until it was passed.

I think adding a right to privacy amendment would solve some of these issues, but unless you define "privacy", you're just going to open up an even bigger can of worms.

Slavery wasn't protected by the Constitution, it's just that Constitution did not forbid it. The Thirteenth Amendment fixed that hole.

However, about a Right to Privacy Amendment, I am in favor of anything that puts the vote in the hands of the general populace. The fewer decisions made by 500+ people in a city 1000 miles away from me, the happier I tend to be.

Our fundamental Constitutional rights must be protected by the Courts. That is Marbury v. Madison (1803). Our reproductive rights are fundamental Constitutional rights protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, they must be protected by the Courts when the legislature errs.

I don't disagree with you about that insofar as it is the state of the law. I just don't think that it is the best way to run a country.

Slavery wasn't protected by the Constitution, it's just that Constitution did not forbid it. The Thirteenth Amendment fixed that hole.


Yeah. It was.

You'll get to see if you've gotten what you paid for in Alito before too long (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11115610/):


The article notes that a third circuit court ruled on it last year, so that's three circuits. Now the question is whether or not the Court grants cert to hear the appeal. If they do, that may mean that they're getting ready to reexamine Casey, if not Roe itself. If they deny it, well, does anyone really think they'll deny it?

Well considering the medical community stands behind the ban because it doesn't serve a purpose, I support it.

Yeah. It was.

Source your argument, please.

A question for a Alito supporters: Is this guy seriously going to invariably uphold the spirit and letter of the Constitution, whether it's over gay marriage bans or environmental litigation, and respect case law? I know they all say they will, and that in general their proponents say so too while thinking to themselves "He'd better not", but can I get a straight answer? Are we looking at a responsible, respectful, truly non-activist justice, if not a balanced or centrist one?

It's important to remember that to some people, proposal of any check on something like abortion is enough to label someone an extremist or zealot.. so no, a small but significant percentage of the country is never going to consider someone like Justice Alito responsible or respectable, and will call him an activist.. But to answer the question as an Alito-supporter, I'd say there's a good chance he'll be a reliable vote in the right direction, although it takes years to know for certain.

Thats the thing. When is it considered a live? From conception really... there are these 4 requirements for something to be alive. Geeze, its been awhile since ive seen them. But pretty much, it works to a point. As soon as conception happens, its considered as alive as a toddler. But, technically, by the 4 rules, a toddler isnt exactly alive. A toddler cannot reproduce yet. Nor can the unborn baby, so then technically, both arent actually alive. But a toddler is, so why isnt the unborn baby? Womans rights? Yeah it is. Womans rights for the dumb ones who didnt think about the consequences. The baby has right too ya know! Just cause it cant talk doesnt mean it cant have rights. Again, a toddler cant really execise its rights, mainly cause it doesnt understand it. Have you ever heard of ANY woman who said they would abort again after they had one? No. Why not?

Usually one doesn't care if something is alive, but if something is sentient. That's more related to personhood. Also, most women aren't interested in getting repeat abortions for the same reason most people aren't interested in getting repeat paramedic visits, or living off welfare checks. They tend to be things that coincide with bad circumstances.

That's the reason why the 13th amendment existed. Slavery WAS legal AND protected under the Constitution until it was passed.

I think adding a right to privacy amendment would solve some of these issues, but unless you define "privacy", you're just going to open up an even bigger can of worms.
But assume that the 13th wasn't passed--would the 14th still outlaw slavery? I think it would, because it provides those rights of citizenship, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How can that be reconciled?

Well considering the medical community stands behind the ban because it doesn't serve a purpose, I support it.
Care to back that up with something besides, you know, the stuff coming out of your ass? You know the drill by now, Corny.

At what point did I ever use the word "deserve"? You're setting up a straw-man argument by putting words I did not use in my mouth.

Nice dodge. (speaking of strawmen). I'll more directly paraphrase your position, then:

Choosing to chop vegetables should come with understanding of the drawbacks (such as losing a finger), and if you can't accept losing a finger then you should not engage in chopping vegetables.

But assume that the 13th wasn't passed--would the 14th still outlaw slavery? I think it would, because it provides those rights of citizenship, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How can that be reconciled?

Apples to Oranges.

The Thirteenth Amendment specifically forbids slavery as a practice federally. The Fourteenth Amendment states that no State can trump a federal mandated right.

If the Fourteenth had not passed, slavery would be illegal, but states can quickly decide how to treat slavery for themselves. In fact, without the Fourteenth Amendment, many federally guaranteed rights would simply be words on paper instead of enforcable ideas.

Slavery wasn't protected by the Constitution, it's just that Constitution did not forbid it. The Thirteenth Amendment fixed that hole.

However, about a Right to Privacy Amendment, I am in favor of anything that puts the vote in the hands of the general populace. The fewer decisions made by 500+ people in a city 1000 miles away from me, the happier I tend to be.

As far as I recall, according to the Dredd Scott case, the Federal Government was prohibited from passing any law that would restrict slavery in the states or the territories - only the states could regulate that, not the Federal Government. Because slaves were considered property, an owner couldn't be deprived of their property without due process.

"The only two provisions which point to them and include them, treat them as property, and make it the duty of the government to protect it; no other power, in relation to this race, is to be found in the constitution; and as it is a government of special, delegated powers, no authority beyond these two provisions can be constitutionally exercised. The government of the United States had no right to interfere for any other purpose but that of protecting the rights of the owner, leaving it altogether with the several States to deal with this race, whether emancipated or not, as each State may think justice, humanity, and the interests and safety of society, require. The States evidently intended to reserve this power exclusively to themselves..."

It was commonly accepted that the federal government didn't have the authority to outlaw slavery except by amending the constitution.

However, about a Right to Privacy Amendment, I am in favor of anything that puts the vote in the hands of the general populace. The fewer decisions made by 500+ people in a city 1000 miles away from me, the happier I tend to be.

Those two sentences are contradictory.

Nice dodge. (speaking of strawmen). I'll more directly paraphrase your position, then:

Choosing to chop vegetables should come with understanding of the drawbacks (such as losing a finger), and if you can't accept losing a finger then you should not engage in chopping vegetables.

Exactly right! Hence why the idea of personal responsibility is so important in this day and age. If you cannot accept any of the outcomes, either good or bad, you should not engage in the originating act.

Plus, it's quicker to buy the pre-chopped bags of vegetables anyways.

You're starting to understand my point.

Well considering the medical community stands behind the ban because it doesn't serve a purpose, I support it.

Utter bullshit. Every fucking word.

(1) the medical community does not support the ban
(2) late-term abortions serve a purpose - saving lives among others
(3) you'd be for the ban anyway -- you support a ban on abortion in general

Those two sentences are contradictory.

How is that? Last I checked, getting an amendment ratified required the populace to vote it into the Constitution by a 3/4th state super majority.

If passing an amendment requires public vote support, I do not see any contradiction in my statement.

But assume that the 13th wasn't passed--would the 14th still outlaw slavery? I think it would, because it provides those rights of citizenship, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How can that be reconciled?

No, the 14th amendment wouldn't outlaw slavery, because the Dredd Scott case would still be the controlling law - and that means that slaves were not considered United States citizens, they were considered property. Since they weren't citizens, they wouldn't be entitled to due process or equal protection.

Source your argument, please.


Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Personally, I find it ironic that the only non derogable part of the constitution is in respect of slavery. It should tell somebody how intellectually bankrupt the whole idea of originalism is. But it won't

How is that? Last I checked, getting an amendment ratified required the populace to vote it into the Constitution by a 3/4th state super majority.

If passing an amendment requires public vote support, I do not see any contradiction in my statement.

"The fewer decisions made by 500+ people in a city 1000 miles away from me, the happier I tend to be."

"The fewer decisions made by 500+ people in a city 1000 miles away from me, the happier I tend to be."

Again, I'm not understanding your point.

Exactly right! Hence why the idea of personal responsibility is so important in this day and age. If you cannot accept any of the outcomes, either good or bad, you should not engage in the originating act.

Plus, it's quicker to buy the pre-chopped bags of vegetables anyways.

You're starting to understand my point.

So, in the name of "personal responsibility," just as you would oppose medical intervention to end a pregnancy, you would oppose medical intervention to re-attach a finger?

Again, I'm not understanding your point.

On the one hand you say you supporting putting decisions in the hands of the majority.

On the other hand you say you are against decisions being made about you by the majority of voters that live in cities miles away away from you

No, the 14th amendment wouldn't outlaw slavery, because the Dredd Scott case would still be the controlling law - and that means that slaves were not considered United States citizens, they were considered property. Since they weren't citizens, they wouldn't be entitled to due process or equal protection.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Slaves would still be persons, regardless of citizenship.

So, in the name of "personal responsibility," just as you would oppose medical intervention to end a pregnancy, you would oppose medical intervention to re-attach a finger?

I am not qualified to make either decision, since I'm not a professional doctor. However, if the doctor advised me that it's not in my best interest to reattach the finger, I would comply and live with the consequence of my futile attempt at dinner.

Very often, voluntary abortions are unnecessary medical procedures...and just as I can't order a doctor to give me an unneeded heart bypass operation, which only affects my life, why should someone be able to terminate the life of another person if the procedure is not needed?

quick edit: it's past my bedtime, since I need to be up in six hours for work. If any of you would like to continue this, feel free to PM or email me. I'm not interested in changing minds, simply asking questions to spur more debate. Good night, and it's been a blast posting tonight.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Slaves would still be persons, regardless of citizenship.
I must be getting tired--that was the reason I gravitated to that part of the Amendment, but I couldn't seem to articulate it.

As a girl,

I think abortion should only be for medical emergencies only.

I am not qualified to make either decision, since I'm not a professional doctor. However, if the doctor advised me that it's not in my best interest to reattach the finger, I would comply and live with the consequence of my futile attempt at dinner.

Very often, voluntary abortions are unnecessary medical procedures...and just as I can't order a doctor to give me an unneeded heart bypass operation, which only affects my life, why should someone be able to terminate the life of another person if the procedure is not needed?

Nice job of trying to equate "in my best interest" with "necessary."

If a doctor advises an abortion is not in the best interest of a woman for medical reasons, I'm sure she would consider complying. That isn't the issue.

The issue is government saying abortion is never (or rarely) in any woman's best interest--regardless of what a doctor might say.

As a girl,

I think abortion should only be for medical emergencies only.

As a man, I think you should leave the decision to women that are pregnant.

You might change your mind if you were pregnant and didn't want to be.

(Not to mention if you were raped.)

As a man, I think you should leave the decision to women that are pregnant.

You might change your mind if you were pregnant and didn't want to be.

(Not to mention if you were raped.)

So your saying I can't have an opinion?

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Slaves would still be persons, regardless of citizenship.

They may be persons, but you'll have conflicting issues there.

Without the 13th amendment, slavery would be legal. Under the Dredd Scott case, slaves are considered property. Therefore, Congress and the States couldn't deprive any person of property - their slaves - without due process.

That's a tough argument to make, and there's room for discussion on the various points, but I think that without the 13th amendment, the 14th amendment wouldn't apply to slaves, based on the case law of the time.

It's an interesting hypothetical.

So your saying I can't have an opinion?
Not at all--simply that you might not want to impose that opinion on others as law, or have others' opinions--that limit your freedom to make choices about your health--imposed on you.

I'm confused about how concieving a child after having sex is roughly the same as accidentally chopping your finger off while cutting vegetables. I was under the impression that the purpose of sex was for reproduction and that pregancy was not some uncommon freak accident. Getting pregnant as a result of sex is more the equivalent to having chopped vegetables after chopping them. The purpose of chopping vegetables is so that you can have chopped vegetables - sure, you may only do the chopping for pleasure and may not want the resulting chopped vegetables, but you chop and chop away fully knowing that you may end up with a bunch of chopped veggies.

Not at all--simply that you might not want to impose that opinion on others as law, or have others' opinions--that limit your freedom to make choices about your health--imposed on you.

Its my opinion. I don't force my views on other. It isn't right to force views on other people. Everyone will have differing opinions.

Its my opinion. I don't force my views on other. It isn't right to force views on other people. Everyone will have differing opinions.

Cat-Tribe was merely suggesting you defer to the opinions of women who have had to make the choice of keeping or aborting a pregnancy.. I don't know if I agree with that reasoning, but there are plenty of pregnant and/or formerly-pregnant women on both sides of the issue.. so take your pick.. :p Some regret having an abortion and think the procedure should be banned, and others think the opposite.. not a major point, but yeh..

Cat-Tribe was merely suggesting you defer to the opinions of women who have had to make the choice of keeping or aborting a pregnancy.. I don't know if I agree with that reasoning, but there are plenty of pregnant and/or formerly-pregnant women on both sides of the issue.. so take your pick.. :p Some regret having an abortion and think the procedure should be banned, and others think the opposite.. not a major point, but yeh..

I'm beginning to understand.

Rubbish.
Back alley abortion doctors don’t use coat hangers, they use unsanitary scapels and such.
You're thinking of desperate pregnant teenagers.

Don't worry, once organized crime realizes what a cash cow illegal abortions can be, they'll set up nice hidden clinics that'll come close to being a professional medical establishment as practically possible.

Don't worry, once organized crime realizes what a cash cow illegal abortions can be, they'll set up nice hidden clinics that'll come close to being a professional medical establishment as practically possible.
And if you get an infection and wind up in a real hospital as a result, you won't be in any position to rat them out because you'll wind up in jail if you do.

I was under the impression that the purpose of sex was for reproduction

well there's your problem