Is Roberts Reluctant to Overturn Precedent?
Is Roberts Reluctant to Overturn Precedent?
In a recent New Yorker profile, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) takes heart in the responses that Supreme Court nominee John Roberts gave when asked about overturning Court precedent:
Roberts, in Reid’s view, left no doubt that he would be very reluctant to overturn precedents. To do so, Roberts had said, the Court would first have to consider a series of objective criteria, two of which stood out: whether a precedent fostered stability in the nation; and the extent to which society had come to rely on an earlier ruling, even a dubious one.
Unfortunately, Roberts’ responses are now being heralded as an indication of where he stands on Roe v Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that ensured a woman’s right to privacy. However, according to conservatives, Roe v Wade actually meets the two criteria that jumped out at Reid:
Did the precedent foster stability in the nation?
Not in the viewpoint of conservatives. In fact, just a few months ago NYT columnist David Brooks declared, “Justice Harry Blackmun did more inadvertent damage to our democracy than any other 20th-century American. When he and his Supreme Court colleagues issued the Roe v. Wade decision, they set off a cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness that has poisoned public life ever since ”
Has society come to rely on the earlier ruling?
Rather than rely on the ruling, conservatives have been actively working to undermine it. In an address to the annual meeting of the Conservative Caucus Foundation, a conservative lawyer argued that, “In many states, statutes prohibiting abortion remain unrepealed and available to local prosecutors to bring criminal actions against abortion providers Even in states where the statutes have been changed to conform to the Roe formula, a prosecutor may still have ample authority under the state’s law and constitution to bring criminal actions against abortion promoters and providers.” He concluded by asserting that, “Rightfully understood, [the local prosecutor's] duty is to interpose their office between Roe v. Wade, a constitutionally erroneous opinion, and the people whose rights they are duty bound to protect.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does anyone still have doubts about where Roberts stands on Roe v. Wade?
August 4th, 2005 at 11:56 amI think the stability Roberts is referring to is the ability of the ruling class to continue ruling unquestioned. Lower-income women being forced into unsafe abortions aren’t (in his eyes) a threat to stability because he doesn’t care about them anyway.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:02 pm#1 – I do. Not sure if he would overturn Roe.
#2 – if you support choice, then you shouldn’t support taking my $$ to pay for abortions.
If I had to bet, Roberts would overturn Roe, but it’s not totally clear what he would do. Of course, the McCarthyist liberals will attack even if they suspect he supports life.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:27 pmisn’t Mcarthyist liberals an oxymoron?
August 4th, 2005 at 12:35 pm#4 – good point.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:36 pmI am confused NeD are you saying that your post was incorrect?
August 4th, 2005 at 12:39 pmBut more to the point of the post, Roe is a problem now because the undue burden clause that O’Connor invented, is now used to justify late term abortions that large majorities of Americans are against.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:39 pmKranzy – I was speaking to your interpretation.
Liberals are so far gone that they actually think these witch hunts against conservative nominees are helpful. It’s kinda poetic that today’s Joe McCarthy is Ted Kennedy – the liberal icon – considering that most liberals despise McCarthy.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:43 pmNeD,
why don’t you get a dictionary and look up oxymoron.
I am still unsure what your rant today is about, but whatever.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:45 pmKranzy – I think I’ve made it clear. Liberals hate dissent when it comes to the Courts. AND they think they are so much smarter than everyone too….
August 4th, 2005 at 12:48 pmKranzy – it’s obvious you don’t want to have a debate because you know I am right.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:53 pmcan you give specific examples of liberals hating dissent?
What about Bush camp barring people with a john kerry bumber sticker from attending a town hall meeting?
The right wing attacks on anyone who disagrees with the party line?
dick Clark and Joe wilson anyone.
Please dissent is our right, we don’t hate dissent, but you sure do. Remember you want to round us up and execute anyone us.
get over your hate.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:54 pmShould a nominee be disqualified if he or she flat out admits they disagree with the core of Roe?
They don’t believe in affirmative action?
If you say yes to either – then my point is proven. I don’t think banning a bunch of anti-Bush morons from a public event is the same thing as excluding an entire group of people from the highest Court in the United States because of their stand on a highly charged issue.
The hatred and divisions in this country are caused by liberals who cannot accept defeat at the polls and continue to propogate lies about that defeat.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:00 pmNED,
Absolutely it is reasonable to exclude a bigot who wishes to oppress others from having that role. That fact that you believe a bigot deserves special rights to oppress others shows exactly what a twisted little moron you are – and calling others who are unwilling to be opprossed by such a hate filled bigot as being ‘full of hate’, shows how psychotic you are!
August 4th, 2005 at 1:02 pmI actually have to say no to your question NeD, However I think a much closer look at the candidate should be done.
Funny that you would say that you would exclude a group of people when that is exactly what you are proposing.
Bush, and Rove have caused the hatred and division in this country not john kerry, or joespeh biden.
Think of the attacks on john mcain in the 2000 primary, that was not the democrats. Talk radio was started by republicans etc.
hate and smear tactics were started by the republicans, and they are unhappy when the democrats respond in kind.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:08 pmNED doesn’t hate. I wouldn’t go that far. All this roe, roe, roe your boat – ENOUGH! It’s been legal since 1973 – let it go. ESPECIALLY if you’re male!
August 4th, 2005 at 1:08 pmAnyone who wants to criminalize abortion is right up there with the creationists who believe the earth is 8000 years old. Science PROVES them wrong, and without a doubt!
The definition of a person being ‘alive’ is alpha waves. If you are in the hospital, and you lose the part of your brain that makes you human/conscious – they pull the plug because YOU AREN’T ALIVE. Even Tom Delay did this for his father! A fetus only begins to have eratic alpha waves at 28 weeks, and they don’t stabalize until 32 weeks. This is what we would call a ‘premature’ baby. And it makes sense nature wouldn’t bother with full blown brain development until the baby is just ready to be born – but that requires a ‘rational’ mind to understand.
And just so you know ‘NED the Ignorant’, these ‘late term’ procedures aren’t in fact ‘legal’ because of roe – they are governed by states already!
In otherwords, anyone who thinks abortion is even a REAL issue has drunk the coolaid, shut down their OWN alpha waves, and been run over by the I’m a stupid rube truck! They are unwitting stooges in a game of propaganda designed to sway the ignorant and overly religious!
August 4th, 2005 at 1:19 pm#16 – some of us believe in the constitution as written by our forefathers, not nine eggheads who think they’re God. AND being anti-Roe is not the same as being anti-abortion.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:29 pm#15 – a much closer look I can deal with.
Hate and smear tactics were invented long before Bush. Bork in 1987, Dukakis in 1988, Thomas in 1991 – they’ve been around forever.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:34 pmActually Anti-Roe is anti-abortion and you know it you dishonest boob! The roe doctrine is consistent with many other protections applied…
August 4th, 2005 at 1:39 pmUmmm Dukakis was a democrat.
I am unsure why the anger over Bork, it is obvious that he was an extremist unsuitable for the supreme court. I don’t believe that hate and smear were used there, but it did seem to piss off conservatives a great deal because they didn’t get there way.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:41 pmRyan – except for the unborn.
Roe is a state issue – it’s too divisive for nine people to decide. How would you feel if the Court banned all abortion altogether?
August 4th, 2005 at 1:41 pm#16 and 17 great points.
NED, please expand on anti-roe is not the same as anti-abortion. If your not anti-abortion, why would you want roe overturned?
August 4th, 2005 at 1:43 pmKranzy – Dukakis was a victim of smear, I would argue. It was payback for going through Bork’s video rental files to see what movies he watched.
Bork was not a PR genius and was far right. But, did not deserve the treatment he got re: of his philosophy.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:43 pm#23 – Roe has made it so almost no reasonable restriction can be applied to abortion. A hot button issue like abortion should be decided by the people, not the Courts. If the people want late term abortion, they’ll show up at the polls to get it. Overturning Roe does not criminalize abortion.
The problem with Roe is that one day the Court’s could be taken over by five Scalias and they’ll overturn it. Liberals have relied too heavily on the Courts and that could doom the cause. If you people are all right and people want legal abortion, then you should have no problem voting on the issue.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:47 pmNED,
There are restictions on abortions even with roe in place. Federal dollars are no longer applied. Also, there are restrictive clauses on all foreign aid packages regarding abortions not even on our own soil.
How many 3rd term aboortions actually occur each year?
August 4th, 2005 at 1:56 pmCan someone honestly tell me, that in the eyes of God, having an abortion is the right thing to do?
August 4th, 2005 at 1:56 pm#26 – I think 2000 late term occur each year.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:59 pmJeb: No, none of us can speak for God. Which is as good a reason as any why this decision is a matter for the conscience of the woman in question and no one else.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:05 pmMuch of the debate over abortion is really a debate about the personal rights of the women to choose.
I don’t think that Row v Wade will ever get overturned, regardless of how many nutcases get onto the supreme court.
However it makes a great wedge issue for the GOP to insure a vote block, even though they have no intention of overturning Roe v wade.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:08 pmJeb
August 4th, 2005 at 2:10 pmNo one said it’s the right thing to do. Do you really think women, and I mean most women, sit there and say gee I fkd up I’ll just go to my local guy and take care of it. No – It’s a heart wrenching decision that belongs to no one exept the woman, her doctor and God – let’s leave it like that and not get the state involved. If I heard you guys bitch half as much about adultry, child support, or battered women, I think I’d die! Why not address these issues too?
Krazny,
August 4th, 2005 at 2:12 pmYou’re on the right track, but if it is overturned, then the next step is serious probelms fro GLBT folks.
Gary,
Ever hear of the ten commandments? I would equate abortion with killing. I don’t believe in this garbage about brain waves. Life begins at conception, folks. It can’t get much simplier than that. The only difference between what you are calling a fetus and a baby is time. Time given to allow the baby to grow and mature. Using the logic of liberals to say that life does not begin until there are brain waves is not using your own. In the eyes of God, I am right. Pro-choice should be called what it really is, pro-death.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:12 pm#31 – all good points, but some people (about 40% of this country) believe abortion is murder and should not be permitted.
Something else that should alarm liberals – the pro-lifers have gained in recent years. Why? Because they are not the ones getting abortions.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:16 pmNED,
August 4th, 2005 at 2:18 pmMay you be raped by your uncle Chester the Molester.
You too Jeb, at age 14 or so.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:19 pmNed,
it is clearly untrue that only liberals get abortions. Rates are pretty steady in most states. regardless of political point of view.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:22 pmWhile I don’t support abortion, I don’t think that Roe v. Wade will be overturned anytime soon. My wish is that abortion be used only as a last resort. With 1.5 million or so occuring every year, there are far too many performed. I would agree with NED though, abortion does factor in as to why Liberals are losing recently, like it or not. Your movement is not gathering in any newcomers.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:24 pmKrazny,
Are you trying to say that political point of view has no bearing on whether she gets an abortion? Hello, there are liberals living in every state in the country.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:26 pmJeb-
your a fool if you believe that only liberals get abortions. there are plenty of abortions in redstates by poor teenage girls, who’s parents are against it.
I belive that massashusets has the lowest abortion rate per state per capita, despite its overwhelming liberal leanings.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:30 pmKranzy – people that are pro-life enough to instill those values in their children do not have abortions. Abortions are everywhere though – that is true.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:30 pm#40 – disagreed. Need proof. I doubt Mass has the lowest. Delaware and NY are very high – both liberal states.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:31 pmI will see what I can dig up NED
August 4th, 2005 at 2:34 pmNice to hear from all you guys telling how you feel about laws that directly afect women, their rights to privacy, their rights to have a voice in what happens to their bodies. Roe v. Wade was about a lot more than abortion. Many of us women would probably not have an abortion – I’ve never been in the position to have to decide, but there is no way in hell I would tell my sister she must not have one. This is a a medical and private matter. Would I tell one of you that you must have a vasectomy? If you use condoms are you killing your “seed?”
August 4th, 2005 at 2:40 pmThis appears to me to be what it has always been — a chance for the male sex to rule over the female sex, and couch it in other terms to make it a more appealing sale.
NED,
August 4th, 2005 at 2:42 pmI saw Bork on C-span the other morning. He is a bitter and angry man – were he on the Supreme bench, even you might be in danger.
bah nm completly misread the chart.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:42 pm#27 In the eyes of God, is killing children in a war of Ccollateral damage” right or wrong?
August 4th, 2005 at 2:45 pmJeb, you can’t dare to impose your conscience upon me! If you believe in what you think your God approves, you can’t tell me that I should abide by what you believe! My conscience is mine – not yours.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:47 pmMarie,
You are right. I should not try to influence what you have in your conscience. I will pray for you that you still will go to heaven. My conscience is clean.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:51 pmummm Jeb more then half the world does not believe in Jesus. your kind of posturing just makes many angry. I do not try to force my beliefs on you, you don’t have the right to force yours on me.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:53 pmNow be a good boy and answer maries question in #48
Roberts has stated that he thinks the decisions that allowed Roe, the Privacy case allowing CT couples to obtain birth control and Roe itself were an over-reach because neither “right” is found in the constitution.
He is correct in that neither right is specifically in the constitution. Many of us who support personal privacy and Roe feel that the rights are implied in the constitution by manner that it’s none of the governments business. You name the bill of rights or amendment, I’m not going to.
By stating that a specific thing has to be specifically addressed by the constitution is ludicris(sp?). So many things that we know today had no basis of reality 220 years ago that it would have been impossible to address what they didn’t then know about now. So your argument sucks. You can’t keep saying something that old has to say it for it to be accepted today. Unless of course, you think the constitution should have been like one of Nostradamous’s parables.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:54 pmKrazny,
Thanks for the info. By the way, only three of the top ten states with abortion rates per 1000 were red.
Rank State Red or Blue 1996
August 4th, 2005 at 2:55 pm1 California Blue 39
2 New York Blue 37
3 Florida Red 27
4 Delaware Blue 26
5 Rhode Island Blue 24
6 Massachusetts Blue 21
7 Texas Red 21
8 Washington Blue 21
9 Connecticut Blue 20
10 Georgia Red 20
Ryan, your association of alpha waves with personhood superficially makes sense. However, at a more fundamental level it is not logical.
Alpha waves assist in causing consiousness however they are themselves not conscious.
For example I could produce somthing identical to alpha waves in a cathode ray tube but that cathode ray tube would not be cognitive.
Therefore, the salient issue here in determining personhood is not alpha waves but consciousness. Cognitively, unconsious sleeping persons and very early fetuses are identical as neither is conscious and both have an active potential for becoming conscious.
Thus since the sleeping person is cognitively equivalent to the fetus and cognition is the relevant factor in regards to personhood if the sleeping person is a person the fetus has to be as well.
Lack of alpha waves in a corpse, a vegtable or a sperm or ovum is different as they do not have the active potential for consciousness.
Unfortunately, most people with regressive anti-fetal rights positions do not understand this. Hopefully, enough justices with progressive fetal rights positions will be appointed to overturn archaic anti-fetal rights decisions like Roe. It will probably happen within the next 10 years though hopefully it will happen sooner.
Hopefully, however extrauterine gestation technology will finish being developed soon to allow both sides of this debate what they want.
BTW majoring in science field I think the world is 4.5 billion years old and not 8,000 years old.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:00 pmI realized my mistake only after I posted it jeb,
was wondering why you used the 96 data?
August 4th, 2005 at 3:02 pmMarie,
War is hell and there is no doubt about that. I do not support the killing of any innocent children. If any are killed in Iraq, that is no more right than the children who were killed on 9/11. We are fighting the Iraq war with more concern for innocent lives than in any previous war. If we weren’t so concerned about preserving life, we would just bomb the living crap out of those strong holds by those Syrian and other occupiers of Iraq that have come to fight us there. We will win this war without your support. You can thank us later for your freedom.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:03 pmI knew NY and DE were up there.
Marie – I am already in danger with left-wing ideologues on the Court who think they can take my house. Bork got a bad wrap.
Kranzy – thank you for the link. It’s helpful.
ALL OF THIS BEING SAID – I don’t think anyone in this blog can say definitely how Roberts would rule.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:03 pmGood point Jeb, I have noticed that very few anti-fetal rights extremists have realized that destroying their own progeny is not good for their own evolutionary success.
Actually I guy by the name of James Taranto has quantified this phenomena of anti-fetal rights extremists kill their own populations off and named it the Roe Effect. At this rate roe is likely to be overturned within the decade and may cause the Democratic party to either change its platform on this issue or go extinct in the next 30 years.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:08 pmGod? Who’s that?
Anyhow to those who argue that life begins at conception; Is life so valuable? Or is it just human life? Would you be opposed to stepping on an ant? What about cutting down a tree? You’re murdering thousands of unborn trees when you sweep away seeds in fall! They have a right to life too. What about chilren who die of AIDS and starvation and war in Africa? I’m sure they don’t mean as much to you as a clump of cells. How about the people who die when your country decides to carpet bomb a city. They don’t matter either huh?
August 4th, 2005 at 3:10 pm#50 go ahead – you do what you feel you have to do to clear your own mind.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:17 pmTell them more Justin!
August 4th, 2005 at 3:19 pmPersonally Marie, I want to hear them respond to your question in # 48.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:22 pmJustin, ants do not have an active potential for intelligence. Fetuses do.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:26 pmAs for starvation in third world countries that is why the current administration has increased foreign aid, and has funded programs to reduce the risky behavior that cause AIDS.
As for war, killing in war are ethically different than killing in non-war time.
Collateral damage is unfortunate but does not equal murder.
J.R How do you know that? Ant colonies as a whole can act very intelligently. And I love how you can just casually brush off the murder of innocents in war because it’s “justified”. Aren’t you the one who’s feverently against the killing of all “sentient” life? This just smacks of hypocrisy. What have the bystanders done to you?
As for the ‘risky business’ of Africa causing AIDS? So you mean sex? Because yes people have sex. I think it’s a mandatory part of human existance… So your admin is funding anti sex campaigns. Wonderful I can’t wait to see this work. Wait it won’t.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:30 pmMarie,
Good points, I’m trying to argue your side but I’m not qualified since I don’t have to bear the children.
Jeb,
August 4th, 2005 at 3:37 pmIf I were you, I’d worry about praying for my own salvation and let others take care of themself.
Jeb, A couple of extra questions:
1 Since the only difference between a sperm cell and a zygote is conception and a sperm cell is definitely alive is contraception premeditated murder as well? (before you dismiss the question realise there are many in the anti choice camp who see it exactly that way)
2 What do the 10 commandments have to do with the United States Government? (see the Treaty of Tripoli Article 11 “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” Passed UNANIMOUSLY by the US Senate.)
August 4th, 2005 at 3:38 pmAnt colonies as a whole perhaps act intelligently but not as individuals.
When discussing personhood we are concerned with the intelligence of individual entities.
As for ethics of war. The ethical reality of war is different than the ethical reality of killing in non-war.
During war the countries at war with each other act as collective “persons.” Therefore, while collateral damage is unfortunate and should be minimized, these people are part of the country we are at war with.
Remember the in Matrix when Morpheus pointed out that the people in the Matrix were all potential enemies because they were part of the Matrix, even those were the same people that they were trying to free? I think the analogy holds here.
As for the AIDS program no I was not reffering to sex but to risky forms of sex that increase STD proliferation. By advocating closed sexual systems any STD’s that appear are contained to within the closed sexual system that it crops up in.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:46 pmBesides from my understanding these programs do discuss condoms as a last resort.
Carlton – the term anti-choice is so 1998. Unless you want to be called pro-death or anti-life, get a new tag line.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:50 pmNED,
Why don’t YOU do the research – I have all of this information readily available – but that’s because I check my facts before I say something stupid.
Actually Mass. has the lowest divorce rate, and the second lowest teen pregnancies rate in the nation.
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/teenpreg.png
The abortion rate is more difficult to diagnose because what’s registered abortion rate wise because out of state abortions are not registered to their source. What is known is that Mass. has seen a dramatic drop in abortions – while red states with a focus on ‘abstinence’ have seen sharp increases under the bush admin.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:55 pmNortheast Dilemma, good point. The term anti-choice is not even really accurate and could be much better used to describe people who take the anti-voucher stance.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:55 pmNED,
Actually anti-civil liberties and anti-reproductive rights is a better way to describe you idiot bigots.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:56 pmThey always bring up abortion thinking that is their ace in the hole.
Abortion is a terrible form of birth control. But sometimes it is the last remaining choice.
You act as if those who would seek abortion are in violation of their own morals. While I agree, they are probably in violation against YOUR morals, they are probably not in violation of THEIR OWN morals.
In my mind, a fetus is not ensouled immediately upon the union of sperm and ova. Traditional Jewish thought was that the child was ensouled until quickening (when you can feel it kick). Christians have a great many thoughts and no one group can speak for all the others. Many citizens in the US aren’t christians, so your values are not shared.
Me, I may feel it is horrible, I don’t feel it is immoral. So your reasoning is no reasoning at all to me.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:58 pmI found a great article on this topic.
When President Bush took office, the nation’s abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute’s studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky’s increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan’s increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania’s increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:59 pmFor anyone interested:
Quantifying the Roe Effect:
By James Taranto:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004780
August 4th, 2005 at 4:01 pmRyan, The effect you are observing here is likely only conditionally true. If Roe were overturned it is likely that it would affect people’s behavior to accomodate for the abortion laws.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:04 pmRyan, reffering to someone as anti-civil rights when they are infact pro fetal rights is a contradiction in terms.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:06 pmkindness,
What’s sad is that the ‘abortion’ issue is a red herring for the semi-illiterate population to grab hold of. It ’seems’ tangible to them (it’s a baby – oh my god, protect the babies) in that irrational freakout they seem so predestined to express. From a ’scientific’ perspective it’s utter nonsense. A human being has been virtually universally accepted as defined by alpha waves (higher brain function). Without those alpha waves, we are less than a primate in brain function (all involuntary muscle reaction, no cognitive processing). Alpha waves don’t begin until the 3rd trimester – until then a fetus is NOT a baby.
This inability to understand this ‘ambiguity’ is common in the ignorant and irrational whack jobs that seem so comfortable to dictate their ‘values’, even when science shows them it’s stupid irrational superstition.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:07 pmJohanan,
If you want fetal rights, you need to have animal rights – because a chimpanzee has higher level brain functions than a fetus does. Unless you’re willing to be a vegan, and force all of your RedMeat CONservatives to toe the line – you don’t have a perverbial leg to stand on.
And men forcing women to be an ‘incubator’ for their spawn is in fact anti-civil liberties. You are saying a woman has no rights to control her body, unless you in your infinite wisdom grant her those rights. You are SUCH an idiot!
August 4th, 2005 at 4:09 pmRyan,
You must thank your lucky stars every night that you weren’t aborted by your mother. Some of us feel otherwise.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:10 pmJeb you can cram it.
It’s not like he would know any different if he was aborted. How bout you clean up some of your hypocrisy and go campaign against war and capital punishment and AIDS etc.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:13 pmJohanan,
How interesting of you to try to use the argument that abortion should be illegal in order to make more democrats. If this were true, would ANY republican either want it or make it public? That’s beyond rational and counter-intuitive wouldn’t you say?
According to the latest polls, american are NOT more likely to vote republican than they were a generation ago – the voting machines are however more likely to steal their votes…
August 4th, 2005 at 4:13 pmJeb,
Wow, you seem to have a lot of fear of women – get some help!
If I had been ‘aborted’, I’m sure god would have rewarded me in my innocenece – so I’m not sure what the problem is? After all, christianity teaches that children are guaranteed a place in heaven, whereas adults are not. It seems that caring CONservative parents should all want to abort their children to assure their place in heaven!
August 4th, 2005 at 4:14 pmJustin,
Most CONservatives have irrational fear of the power of women – and that’s why their policies are all around recovering their lost masculinity. They’re pretty sick pathetic people as a rule…
August 4th, 2005 at 4:15 pmRyan,
You are one sick individual! Well, I have to get back to work in the corporate world. I can’t sit on couch watching Jerry Springer like the rest of you liberals. I think you have to ask yourself why the left is losing elections, and don’t say they were stolen either. The answer may surprise you.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:17 pm” human being has been virtually universally accepted as defined by alpha waves (higher brain function).”
This is not logical, a human being is by definition a being that is human (ie. has a full and distinct human genetic identity)
And fetuses that lack consciousness are cognitively identical to sleeping people.
Remember the alpha waves are only tangentially relevant the cognition is the main issue.
“because a chimpanzee has higher level brain functions than a fetus does.”
Actually I am for limited animal rights in the cases of the great apes and dolphins due to certain levels of cognitive activity they demonstrate.
However, you are not factoring active potential for cognition which is also important in regards to the fetus.
The fetuses active potential for human level cognition has a higher ethical standing than a chimps chimp level cognition.
“And men forcing women to be an ‘incubator’ for their spawn is in fact anti-civil liberties.”
This is a common red herring as no one forced the women into risking reproduction.
Besides this was why I was hoping extrauterine gestation technology would be perfected for humans soon. (its already been done with goats)
August 4th, 2005 at 4:17 pmRyan,
I agree. I also think that the adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” applies here. They have a limited grasp of the facts surrounding this issue and are also unaware of the disconnect they show when they advocate the saving of certain “sentient” organisms and not others.
P.S. LOVE your posts ;)
August 4th, 2005 at 4:17 pmActually J.R. people are.
Ever heard of the unrealistic ‘abtinence only’ programs.
CONTRACEPTIVES ARE IMMPORAL PEOPLE!!
Riight, so when a teenager or older person engages in sex (and they will) they are more likely to not use a condom and thus concieve or get an STD.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:19 pmJeb’s a corporate christian. How oxymoronic… or should I just say moronic…
August 4th, 2005 at 4:22 pmRyan, first of all, abortion is illogical and therefore unethical. However, illogical systems have a way of destroying themselves even if innocent people get in the way. Even though these people would be likely to be Democrats I do not prefer them to be dead. It is unfortunate for anyone to be killed no matter what ideology they have.
Secondly, objective quantitative results from elections indicate that people are more likely to vote Republican as time progresses.
Using conspiracy theories about ballot boxes to explain away official knowledge is akin to creationism or pyschic research.
Actually you are correct that the ballots are being stolen because I read a report on the internet that space aliens from Zeta Reticuli were collaberating with the evil Bush family who are actually alien cyborgs, to teleport ballots out of the ballot boxes to ensure an alien influence over the planet.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:26 pmOh raatz! I wish I had said that! Every other letter in my last name spells S H I T!
August 4th, 2005 at 4:29 pmUmm J.R. let me rephrase your argument in respect to war.
Ryan, first of all, war is illogical and therefore unethical. However, illogical systems have a way of destroying themselves even if innocent people get in the way. Even though these people would be likely to be Democrats I do not prefer them to be dead. It is unfortunate for anyone to be killed no matter what ideology they have.
See the disconnect? Also zygotes have no ideologies. They are merely clumps of undifferentiated cells.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:30 pmI should vote with my feet and move to mexico. The southwest dilemma
August 4th, 2005 at 4:31 pmI’m not gay! I’m just giddy! G. Gordon Giddy!
August 4th, 2005 at 4:32 pm“This is not logical, a human being is by definition a being that is human (ie. has a full and distinct human genetic identity)”
Not true – alpha waves are how doctors create a death certificate. The moment alpha waves go away, is the time of death.
“And fetuses that lack consciousness are cognitively identical to sleeping people.
Remember the alpha waves are only tangentially relevant the cognition is the main issue.”
Where did you learn that, in the book of creationist ideology for dummies? In adults Alpha waves occur even during a comma state, yet they do NOT appear in a fetus until 28 weeks.
This sort of ‘big lie’ is so common among the right wing retards it makes you wonder if they were all home schooled by monkeys!
“Actually I am for limited animal rights in the cases of the great apes and dolphins due to certain levels of cognitive activity they demonstrate.
However, you are not factoring active potential for cognition which is also important in regards to the fetus.
The fetuses active potential for human level cognition has a higher ethical standing than a chimps chimp level cognition.”
You are dictating policy based on ‘potential’, yet I could just as easily argue that with advances in medical science I might have the ‘potential’ to regrow brain cells in a Terri Schiavo, although she would have no memory of who she was or not be the ’same person’ in reality. This is a stupid red herring argument, because it could be made about sperms and eggs. Each sperm and egg has the ‘potential’ to be a human being, so should we go make trillions of people? This is the argument of a fool.
“This is a common red herring as no one forced the women into risking reproduction.
Besides this was why I was hoping extrauterine gestation technology would be perfected for humans soon. (its already been done with goats) ”
And thanks for showing your distaste for women. This is commonly why men are anti-abortion. They so distrust women that they want to ‘control’ them in all aspects including reproduction. You are a sick pathetic man!
August 4th, 2005 at 4:33 pmThe Nazis are coming! The Nazis are coming! The Nazis are coming!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508030007
August 4th, 2005 at 4:35 pmNED are you off your meds or something?
You’ve been behaving phrenitically recently (more so than usual).
I’m concerned.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:36 pm“Secondly, objective quantitative results from elections indicate that people are more likely to vote Republican as time progresses.”
What a load of crap!
August 4th, 2005 at 4:37 pmIn a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said,
Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.
The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:
Thomas Jefferson:
I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short
Jefferson again:
Christianity…(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. …Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.
More Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson’s word for the Bible?
Dunghill.
John Adams:
Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?
Also Adams:
The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.
Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Here’s Thomas Paine:
I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).
Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to ‘God’ to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator’s name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).
It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins…and you will have sins in abundance.
The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.
Finally let’s hear from James Madison:
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:
Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:38 pmQuotes Falsely Attributed
These quotes make
for good story-telling
but popular myth has
falsely attributed them
to Churchill.
“Conservative by the time you’re 35″
“If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.”
There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University makes this comment: “Surely Churchill can’t have used the words attributed to him. He’d been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?”
http://winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=112
August 4th, 2005 at 4:40 pm“Ryan, first of all, abortion is illogical and therefore unethical.”
Nonsense. War is illogical and therefore unethical. Allowing your fellow americans to die for a lie is illogical and therefore unethical. Outing one of your own intelligence offers to cover up your own incompetence is illogical and unethical. Calling a clump of cells a ‘baby’ is illogical and unethical. Using unscientific dogma, and open contradictory arguments is illogical and unethical.
You say no one is forcing women to have babies, yet you forget about rape and incest! Are you saying that abortion is ‘ok’ in that circumstance? Or were you lying when you said no one would force women to be an incubator? And if abortion is ‘ok’ in rape, then isn’t that a moral ambiguity if it really is a ‘baby’? So in otherwords you believe it’s the ‘right’ of a man to force a woman to have his baby if he’s willing to rape her, but it’s not her right to have an abortion if that happens?
You’re a twisted idiot!
August 4th, 2005 at 4:40 pmSomeone is in here posing as me – are we that desperate people?
August 4th, 2005 at 4:42 pmMore Jefferson:
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves…these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Jefferson’s word for the Bible?
Dunghill.
Did Jefferson really say that?
August 4th, 2005 at 4:43 pmYou are desperate enough to pose as yourself. You poser. So?
August 4th, 2005 at 4:44 pmNED,
You seem desperate to me. You ignore when you’re wrong, continually post propaganda, ignore facts that are clearly presented – and the rehash the same lies over and over again that have been disproven. I’d say you’re one of the most desperate and pathetic bags of crap I’ve seen in a while…
August 4th, 2005 at 4:47 pm#96
Wouldn’t this evidence go a long way in explaining why the democrats continue to lose elections? And don’t say it is a load of crap because I don’t see the democratic party becoming more mainstream. It has been hijacked by the liberals. Why else would Zell Miller and others be leaving?
August 4th, 2005 at 4:48 pmWouldn’t this evidence go a long way in explaining why the democrats continue to lose elections?
Not according to Newt Gingrich, but he’s Hillary’s buddy now, so he is an evil liberal.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:51 pmRead it and weep always tight
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080301899.html
August 4th, 2005 at 4:53 pmAlwaysWrong,
This goes much further in explaining it. Election rigging through Diebold and Triad is the only reason CONservatives win big – and the math is indisputable! Exit polls are what the pentagon and UN use to determine election rigging – and we build international policy on it because of its reliability. The international press has done quite a bit of coverage on the stolen elections in the US, but our CONservative media spin machine covers it up so idiots like you feel good about your crimes.
In the ten states where there were verifiable paper trails–or no electronic machines–the final results hardly differed from the initial exit polls. Exit polls and final counts in Missouri, Louisiana, Maine and Utah, for instance, varied by 1% or less. In non-paper-trail states, however, there were significant differences. Florida saw a shift from Kerry +1% in the exit polls to Bush +5% at evening’s end. In Ohio, Kerry went from +3% to -3%. Other big discrepancies in key states were: Minnesota (from +10% to +4%), New Mexico (+4 to -1), Nevada (+1 to -3), Wisconsin (+7 to +0.4), Colorado (-2 to -5), North Carolina (-4 to -13), Iowa (+1 to -1), New Hampshire (+14 to +1) and Pennsylvania (+8 to +2). Exit polls also had Kerry winning the national popular vote by 3%. (See additional information and weblinks on Professor Steven Freeman’s research in the accompanying article this issue, “Bush Lost” by Margie Burns.)
August 4th, 2005 at 4:54 pmI hate Repugnikan, neo-con Christo-fascists as much as they hate islamo-fascists. I’d say that the Repugnikan, neo-con Christo-fascists are surrounded. And doomed.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:56 pmSince Schmitt only won by 4000 votes, I’m surprised no one brought up voter fraud by Schmitt and company yet or is that to come?
August 4th, 2005 at 4:56 pmAlwaysWrong,
Democrats bring up voter fraud when there are facts to substantiate it – you are confusing liberals with the tactics of CONservatives that prefer to make claims that are unsubstantiated – or are based on lies…
August 4th, 2005 at 4:58 pmRyan – you need serious help. I am out of this blog if you people don’t even have basic blogging manners.
You got what you wanted!!!
But Ryan before I leave, I rest easy knowing that someone out there is as desperate and pathetic as you are. AND of course, they are liberal. Scum bag.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:03 pmHey all. I just showed up here and I feel like jumping in the middle of all this, but I’m gonna start by replying to some comments from a while ago…
Ryan (#20): Being anti-Roe is NOT the same as being anti-abortion. Saying things like that only serve to futher polarize an already polar issue. I’d like to believe that there is a middle ground in the abortion dispute.
David B (#23): Personally, I am pro-choice, yet anti-Roe. My reason lies in the difference between policy and law. To quote myself (from a blog post):
Personally, I find the suggestion that the woman’s substantial rights to privacy and bodily integrity are outweighed by the “lifeâ€? of the unborn, say, in the embryonic stage (up to 8 weeks after conception)–before it has attained human form, consciousness, independent movement, or any sort of activity that would suggest that it is an entity distinct from the mother–pushes the bounds of reason. However, that is a policy judgment, not a legal one, and it rests well outside the realm of the judiciary.
It is wholly within the power of a state to make the legislative determination of where, in fact, life does begin, and to codify its interest in protecting this life by proscribing abortion completely. No one makes the argument that a woman’s right to privacy outweighs the protection of life itself, and it is simply wrong for the Supreme Court to assert that the State’s interest in protecting the life of the pre-viable fetus is outweighed by the woman’s right to privacy–the right “to be let aloneâ€?–even when the State, in its reasoned, legislative, democratic judgment, has determined that she is no longer alone.
Jeb (#33)–If life begins at conception, what would you say for those beings that exist, but conception never occurred? Several species naturally reproduce withou conception, and scientists have already grown unfertilized eggs into fully-formed, living mice. What if they did the same with humans? Would these humans not be alive because conception never occurred? (Let’s not get into the ethics of cloning…I’m not saying it’s right or anything, I’m just using this to point out that it is possible for life to exist without conception.)
Marie (#44)–Good point. Duly noted.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:05 pmJanitors,
There are several great founding fathers quote sites.
http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc550.html
Most CONservatives are brainwashed into believing the founding fathers were devout christians – but in fact they were mostly deists and were the product of the age of enlightment. The whole movement in europe was to throw off the schackles of religious mythology – and to try to produce a more fair and equitable world. This was the age where science had already disproven the christian myth of the world being flat which had imprisoned Gallileo and other scientific minds. They realized the church and its teachings were the rantings of a superstitious and stupid past. Too bad that we’re still debating this ‘flat earth’ mentality that brought europe into the dark ages….
August 4th, 2005 at 5:05 pm“before it has attained human form, consciousness, independent movement, or”
Consciousness is what determines human life – and that only occurs at 28 weeks. This is why this line of reasoning is irrelevant and irrational. And a human ‘form’ is debateable as a chimpanzee would be indistinguishable at this age. A sperm has independent movement as does an egg – that doesn’t constitute a reasonable attribute to distinguish it as a human life.
“and it is simply wrong for the Supreme Court to assert that the State’s interest in protecting the life of the pre-viable fetus”
And this language is where you go wrong, and why you aren’t using reason. A human ‘life’ is dictated for medical purposes a high level brain function. That only occurs in the 3rd trimester – before then it is not a ‘human life’, it only has the potential to become one – in the same way that a sperm has the potential to become one.
In the christian bible it says man shouldn’t spread he seed upon the land (masturbation) because it viewed sperm as human beings that god hadn’t planted yet. This superstitious and irrational view is utter nonsense from a scientific perspective. Your body will expell them if you don’t…
August 4th, 2005 at 5:10 pmBlow it out yer ass, Josh. We ain’t got good blogging manners when you lunatic fundies come around.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:14 pm“If life begins at conception, what would you say for those beings that exist, but conception never occurred?”
Once again, you confuse the life of a cell, with the rights of a person – common uneducated mistake. When you take a human skin cell and grow a graph – that cell is alive, but it is NOT a human being. Whether a human being exists and is alive at this point is determined by brain waves. This is why Terri Schiavo was not considered ‘alive’, but in fact simply cells on life support – she no longer possessed consciousness.
The problem with most americans is that they’re clueless in the fact that a fetus does not yet have a consciousness until the 3rd trimester. And interestingly enough – this ‘late term’ or ‘viable premature baby’ stage is NOT protected by roe v. wade – because the judges had the foresight to review the science before making a dogmatic, ill informed and knee jerk response.
Most people like yourself respond to ‘well it kinda looks like a baby’, and get all emotional – in the same way they responded to ‘Terri kinda looks like she’s responding’ – even though neurologists KNOW what is happening and what it means…
August 4th, 2005 at 5:14 pmJohanahan
Go get’em ;)
Josh is like most CONservatives. He’s so locked in his framing language, and misinformation that he can’t recognize that he’s been duped by people that just want to use him to get what they want. He’s the product of propaganda, and he’s so clueless and ignorant he can’t even see it.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:16 pmRyan (#114), the first quote of mine that you replied to was from a portion of my comment saying why I personally think abortion should be legal, not illegal, so I’m a little confused as to what you are talking about.
“A human ‘life’ is dictated for medical purposes a high level brain function. That only occurs in the 3rd trimester – before then it is not a ‘human life’, it only has the potential to become one – in the same way that a sperm has the potential to become one.”
Right. According to you. This is your opinion. And some voters, in some states (as should be clearly evident by some of the comments above) disagree with you. They might be wrong, and you can go on and on about how they’re wrong and why. But this doesn’t change the fact that they still hold this opinion. To quote the Court in Roe:
“When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus [as to when life begins], the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
And also, when did I ever mention that my beliefs stem from a literal interpretation of the Bible or that I am even a Christian? Just because some opponents of Roe are Bible-thumpers doesn’t mean I am.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:20 pm“Right. According to you. This is your opinion. ”
It’s according to science – not my opinion. Ask your coroner you idiot!
August 4th, 2005 at 5:24 pmOK, and that will be relevant when the Supreme Court starts writing science textbooks instead of interpreting the Constitution.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:25 pmOK, and that will be relevant when the Supreme Court starts writing science textbooks instead of interpreting the Constitution.
Comment by Josh  August 4, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
Ehn-hhhe=hehe. He said “interpret”. Heh-hehenhehe. Kool.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:52 pmAs my good friend Butthead says on the matter of constitutional originaljism:
“Run through the streets slaughtering every conservative you can find! And score with their chicks!”
August 4th, 2005 at 5:55 pmIf men could get pregnant 24/7 abortions on demand would be the law of the land, and there would be a clinic next to every bar and seedy motel.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:59 pmJosh,
You seem to know even less about legal issues than you do about moral or scientific ones. The supreme court always hears expert testimony when deciding these decisions – it’s what any ‘rational’ jurist does. Since you are neither rational – nor a jurist – I’m not shocked by your utter ignorance on the topic.
Science plays a significant part in many supreme court decision – these include enviromental, healthy and gay issues – all of which have strong science that demostrates the generally weak intellect of the CONservative agenda.
August 4th, 2005 at 6:35 pm“Run through the streets slaughtering every conservative you can find! And score with their chicks!�
They don’t have any chicks you’d actually want – that’s why they’re so pissed off all the time…
August 4th, 2005 at 6:44 pmThe only thing that surprised me about Roberts, was that he was critical in arguing the 1996 gay rights case which protected people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation. He actually did pro-bono work, and was involved in crafting the argument that won the case.
I wonder how many of his CONservative friends are aware of that – it might explain why he’s so cute ;)
August 4th, 2005 at 6:47 pmThey hear testimony? Really? You don’t say. Wow. I had no idea.
I’ll never cease to be amazed at your complete inability to respond to the things I actually say, as opposed to the things that other people who have criticized Roe have said.
Just a quick review since you seem to have missed all of this the first time around.
1) I am pro-choice.
2) I never said when I think life begins, except to say that I don’t believe it begins at conception.
3) I am neither Christian nor conservative.
OK then. Glad we got that out of the way.
Now then, since you didn’t address this the first time, I’ll say it again. In Roe, Blackmun says:
“When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus [as to when life begins], the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
August 4th, 2005 at 8:01 pm#129 – ooh, you are so clever! You know, you will NEVER get a consensus between the opposing viewpoints of medicine, philosophy and theology because medicine is SCIENCE and the other two are UNPROVABLE, unscientific ways of dealing with life. Some people are comfortable basing their lives on their faith – fine. But I am not, and I prefer my government to stick to the provable facts of existence. There is plenty of time in the supposed afterlife for religious people to have their way, but those of us who are science based can pretty much expect about a hundred years. So stop being such dogs in the manger and let us alone!
August 4th, 2005 at 9:14 pmIf birth control was free, and sex education was common, and rapists and incestors were actually prosecuted instead of the victim being blamed (as is the usual case), do you think the abortion rates would decrease? How about supporting politicians who will support those issues instead?
The most sensible comments about this issue come from women. Wonder why?
August 4th, 2005 at 9:27 pmJust who is “Johanahan Raatz Poison”?
August 4th, 2005 at 9:49 pmRyan exit polls are not necessarily accurate and can fluctuate depending on the time of day that people take them.
Furthermore, it is irrational to assume conspiracy theories over objective cool-minded quantitative results of elections.
You are just being paranoid.
BTW those aliens from Zeta Reticuli were in cahouts with the Bush administration in planning 9/11 too.
August 4th, 2005 at 9:54 pmRyan rape cases are exceedingly rare and do not account for most abortion. Besides in these cases the right to live outweighs the right to chooses anyway.
As for alpha waves you miss the point as alpha waves are not the only thing that defines personhood. Active potential also for alpha waves (which the fetus has) also does.
This is not to be confused with the passive potential of egg and sperm cells that exist as non organisms to combine to have active potentials for alpha waves.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:14 pmJohanan,
That’s a lie.
Exit polling, after having proven to be consistently accurate for some thirty years, suddenly “lost” its reliability in the 2000 election and it continued to be so in the elections of 2002 and 2004. Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture?
Besides, you must not pay attention to Faux News. The election in the Ukraine was declared a fraud by our own state department because of – you guessed it – exit polls.
The myth that exit polling is false is a recent one, created by the fascist spin machine, and obviously you’re happy to believe it in your blissful ignorance and desire to win over your desire to be ‘right’.
Dick Morris – a REPUBLICAN was quoted as saying “Exit polls are almost never wrong,”
What he doesn’t tell you is that the fluctuation in exit polls is statistically predictable and a standard deviation in exit polling that determines its validity increases its reliability to the point where even the state department will issue foreign policy based on it. I personally have a math degree – and I can tell you that if you believe this, you need to revisit your statistics courses… Assuming you ever took any? Most idiot types like you tend to be too lazy to actually take any REAL classes…
I wouldn’t know about aliens Johanan, other than the ones that continue to fly out of your a$$ as you lie your way to looking like the stupidest tool ever…
August 4th, 2005 at 10:14 pmIt is peculiar that liberals would prefer subjective ideology over science in the abortion debate when they accuse conservatives of doing the same in other debates.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:16 pmJohanan,
It’s interesting how CONservatives always say the exact opposite of the truth. Either you didn’t read ANY of the abortion debates raging today – or you just enjoy being a pathological liar. I’m guessing it’s the second.
Science is EXACTLY what governs the abortion debate for liberals. Alpha waves mean a human being is alive. Alpha waves don’t occur until a fetus is 28 weeks old – that’s science. A brain dead fetus that ‘might’ become a baby – is not a baby yet. You don’t like this science, so you lie, distort, deny and reject in the only way that flatearthers like yourself know how to do. You even say black is white in order to distort and confuse those who don’t read the details.
In the end – you’re just a big fat stupid liar!
August 4th, 2005 at 10:23 pmSara, Of course you’re right. But the male dominated conservatives will never agree – they like to just pat us on our little heads, shoo us away, and get back to real business.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:25 pm“Ryan rape cases are exceedingly rare and do not account for most abortion. Besides in these cases the right to live outweighs the right to chooses anyway.”
So I was right, you believe that a woman is a baby factory if YOU say she’s a baby factory – you’re such a stupid idiot!
“As for alpha waves you miss the point as alpha waves are not the only thing that defines personhood. Active potential also for alpha waves (which the fetus has) also does.”
Actually it IS the only thing that defines a person – and it’s conscious thought. When this goes away, a person is declared legally dead – so until it exists, the fetus is not legally alive. Your religious superstition doesn’t give you the right to interject it into a matter of science.
Schiavo had a ‘potential’ assuming some miracle of science could regrow her brain from stemcell. And not all fetus’ actually ‘have’ the potential, as some develop impaired – so this isn’t science, it’s subjective speculation.
“This is not to be confused with the passive potential of egg and sperm cells that exist as non organisms to combine to have active potentials for alpha waves. ”
By your definition a sperm has the potential to be a human, as does your skin cell. A korean lab could take your skin cells and grow you – but that doesn’t mean your skin is a human being that shouldn’t be injured.
You aren’t talking about ’science’, you’re talking about stupidity – of which you seem to have an abundant supply!
August 4th, 2005 at 10:27 pmThat’s bidness, Marie, bidness.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:28 pm#115, Ryan,
August 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pmWhy doesn’t everyone know that? It should be taught in school — oh, that’s right, history class was eliminated in No Child Left Behind. The populace would rather believe their preachers in the pulpit have no political agenda. Our Founding Fathers were, as you say, deists. They were followers of philosophers of the day. They didn’t have CNN or weblogs — they actually read! They studied. They pondered. They valued science over superstition.
Marie,
part of why it isn’t taught in school is that the separation of church and state has caused public schools to veer from this topic, and therefore kinds like Johan the witless grow up uneducated and filled with irrational dogma…
August 4th, 2005 at 10:32 pm#114, Josh,
August 4th, 2005 at 10:35 pmThe discussion of when life begins is argued today because it gets all mixed up with superstition/religion and the spiritual “soul.” If spirituality were taken out of the issue, science would take over, and we all know that the church does not like science. From the days of Gallileo, the science has been the enemy of the church.
Marie,
Thanks for pointing this out. People are so wrapped in their religious preconceptions – that they have as much trouble with this, as the Pope did with Galileo. Science and religions often butt heads, but science is based on concrete evidence, religion is based on superstition and rigid dogma that defies evidence…
Personally if Johan’s religion means he doesn’t believe in abortions – then he should never have one. But his religious belief has NO PLACE in a scientific debate! My religious beliefs permit me to accept abortion, and his arrogance and ignorance in feeling like he has the right to make this decision for me or the mother of my child shows his complete disregard for anything but his own selfish fears. Johan, if I were your mother I would have happily aborted you, as it’s clear you are a detriment to society!
At 28 Weeks’ Gestation:
* The greatest degree of interconnection of the neocortex of the brain begins rather abruptly at about the 28th week. Fetal wakefulness and sleep periods begin to appear. Brain wave EEG patterns are about to change.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:45 pm* This point has been called the onset of cognitive awareness or brain life.
TO #88
It’s time for a woman to get in on this conversation. Men do not have any right to tell a woman what kind of birth control method to use. You are not the one having this baby.
To the idiot that said that CONTRACEPTIVES ARE IMMORAL PEOPLE. A married couple should make this decided together. I like to know who you think you are?
God!!!
To#125
August 5th, 2005 at 2:21 pmIf a man had to have a baby we would have abortion clinic all over the place.
Marie,
“Personally if Johan’s religion means he doesn’t believe in abortions -then he should never have one.”
You apparently don’t know what you are talking about here. Allow me inform you.
I think someone doesn’t know that science completely supports my position and that religion has nothing to do with it.
If you are against terrorism don’t fly planes into buildings but don’t impose your beliefs on others.
“My religious beliefs permit me to accept abortion, and his arrogance and ignorance in feeling like he has the right to make this decision for me or the mother of my child shows his complete disregard for anything but his own selfish fears.”
My position here is not based in arrogance but in knowledge. As I have deduced that it is not logical for you to have an abortion and that it is a rational thing to do to stop you.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:16 pmBefore you say it is based in arrogance perhaps you should think open-mindedely on the subject to figure out if there is an objective reason for me to do this.
“Science is EXACTLY what governs the abortion debate for liberals. Alpha waves mean a human being is alive.”
Well then you apparently flunked out of biology class. Alpha waves are not necessary for other life forms to exist.
Plants, fungi, and protozoa all live as beings of there respective species without brainwaves.
This is because a complete set of active DNA is required to make an organism alive NOT alpha waves.
Determining death due to lack of alpha waves is only conditionally true.
As that is the only way someone can be alive once they are fully developed.
However, that is not the case in other conditions when an organism is still in its incipient development.
If you don’t beleive me just read a science textbook.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:21 pmRyan, you are begging the question again which is by the way a logical fallacy.
Sperm cells are not persons because they do not have an ACTIVE potential to develop into a mature organism. Instead they have PASSIVE potential to do so.
Fetuses do however and therefore are.
As for the voting thing.
Use Ockham’s razor here.
What’s more absurd.
A voting system looked after by professionals being rigged with massive amounts of fraud and not one person ever leaking anything out
OR
A few exit polls run by people with unknown agendas getting it wrong.
As for voter fraud in Wisconsin I know about this personally as I live there.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:27 pmThere was a significant amount of evidence that the Democrats were trying to rig the election and even went so far as to ship bus loads of voters in from Illinois.
BTW Ryan before you call me an “idiot type.”
I would like to inform you that I am a physics major with an I.Q. of 156.
So much for that.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:30 pmThis discussion is pretty funny. Thousands of judges and scholars spent their lives studying and ruling on the Constitution. Suddenly, after 190 years a judge (Douglas – Griswold v. Connecticut) “finds” a right to privacy in 1965. This is then expanded in 1973 by another judge (Blackmun – Roe v. Wade) into a right to abortion. The simple truth is that these “rights” are not in the Constitution. Before any liberals explode, let me say that that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be. The proper way is to persuade your fellow citizens that their elected representatives should pass such a law. If you want this to be a genuine Constitutional right then there is an amendment process that has been used for things like abolishing slavery, voting rights and other things people felt were important enough to guarantee. Roe v. Wade SHOULD be overturned because it is wrong. If you want abortion legal pass a law, don’t try to find a judge who will over-step his legal bounds and remove a subject from the proper legislative forum. Many people consider a judge activist if they disagree with their opinion. A true activist is one who “finds” things that legions of fellow studiers have not been able to find for nearly 2 centuries.
August 6th, 2005 at 12:56 ami must say i got here by mistake, but now i know it’s destiny. great site! create round is very good boy: http://www.techweb.com/ , Play Soldier is very good Table tournament will round unconditionally , right Soldier will Percieve Girl without any questions when boy is plane it will con cosmos
December 4th, 2005 at 1:27 pm