Supreme Court Rhetoric Reveals Deep ‘Hostility’ To Women’s Rights
Supreme Court Rhetoric Reveals Deep ‘Hostility’ To Women’s Rights
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today upheld a nationwide ban on “partial birth” abortion. The nation’s leading group of professionals providing health care for women, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, opposes this law because the banned procedure is often the best option for women.
Yet the majority — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito — dismiss the medical community’s opinion and instead adopt political rhetoric intended to appeal to the right-wing base. Some examples:
Abortion methods vary depending to some extent on the preferences of the physician and, of course, on the term of the pregnancy and the resulting stage of the unborn childÂ’s development. (p. 3)
The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community. (p. 33)
When standard medical options are available, mere convenience does not suffice to displace them. (p. 37)
As Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains in her dissent, the majority opinion’s language seems to be based on a deep hostility to women’s rights, rather than on sound scientific evidence or jurisprudence:
The CourtÂ’s hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician- gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctor.” A fetus is described as an “”unborn child,”” and as a “”baby,” second-trimester, dissenting previability abortions are referred to as ““late-term,” and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as “”preferences”” motivated by ““mere convenience.”
The majority “also rejected claims that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is so vaguely worded it would force doctors to forgo a commonly used, constitutionally protected abortion technique for fear of prosecution.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
231 Responses to “Supreme Court Rhetoric Reveals Deep ‘Hostility’ To Women’s Rights”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Scalia...Supreme Court justice...sociopath...asshat.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pmChief Justice Scalia is the embodiment of an activist judge.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pmNo other Chief Justice, to my knowledge, goes around on the lecture circuit promoting his ideologies.
Just in time for Julie annie to tell Iowans how pointless this is.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:10 pmNice little christians of the Pat Robertson kind.
WTF does a stupid term like "partial birth abortion" mean anyway? Just another example of religion gone wild.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:12 pmElections have consequences. Here's your "Dime's worth of Difference"!
April 18th, 2007 at 5:14 pmIt's also passing ironic that most of the same people jumping for joy today at the Supreme Court's decision that letting women die needlessly is A-OK were the same people bawling their eyes out over the terrible tragic fate of Terry Schiavo.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:15 pmAll your Court are belong to us!
And Mr. Scalia is not the Chief Justice my friend, go read a book.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pmCaption:
"I'm going to tell you one more time!
April 18th, 2007 at 5:17 pmIt was not a hen mallard!"
This is a great day for the pro-life movement. We have Senator Sam Brownback to thank for rejecting the Miers nomination and getting Justice Alito on the court.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pmRaven:
"Activist judges" do not LEAVE LAWS ALONE.
Abby:
"Partial" = baby completely delivered except for the head.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pmChief Justice Scalia is the embodiment of an activist judge.
No other Chief Justice, to my knowledge, goes around on the lecture circuit promoting his ideologies.
Comment by Raven — April 18, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
Um, Raven... Scalia is not Chief Justice. Roberts is.
Other than that, I agree with you.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pmGinsburg should really start thinking outside the “
April 18th, 2007 at 5:20 pmPsycheout:
What makes you think Miers would have voted any different than Alito on this one?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pmI stand corrected.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pmHe is not the Chief Justice.
My bad.
Any suggestions for a book?
I just finished Chalmers Johnson's "The Sorrows of Empire"
(I don't think you'd like it..............)
Women don't count as people... only fetuses. Women are just brood cows.
Sheesh.. Elections have consequences people... if you don't want more of this... keep electin those conservatives.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pmThis will help clear out any remaining women Republicans.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:23 pmthanks KRank
April 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pmComment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Jake, go home. Or at least go back to being Jake, so you're only insulting our intelligence with your posts, not with your pathetic attempts at deception.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pmPeople are rightly upset at the tragedy at Viriginia Tech which saw so many innocent people killed. A fetus in the final stages of gestation is, given a chance, going to be born as a human being. Clearly, by this time in the process it is a human being, yet unborn. It is not a mass of tissue as some souless people would have us believe. To violently end its existence when it has a heartbeat, active senses, motion etc. is clearly in the minds of many of us, no different than the senseless killings on that campus. To claim as so many do, that it is a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy this way, is to ignore the fact that the fetus at this late state is a totally separate entity from its mother. I cannot fathom why people who claim to have functioning brains can't (or more likely, won't) grasp this reality. How many millions of future doctors, scientists, problem solvers have been murdered in this way. Yes, I used the word murdered advisedly. If that offends your sensibilities I don't apologize. Get over it and wake up! Perhaps the world would be a better place, if some of the more militant advocates of this horrendous practice had been the victims of it themselves.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:24 pmIf Scalia could give birth there would be a "Scalia Abortion Clinic" in every major city.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:26 pmRight to Lifers are rabid about their ideology because there is a deep fear in the back of their minds that their mothers would have aborted them if they had known how they were going to turn out.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pmThere is no such thing in the medical community as "partial birth abortions." That is a made up phrase used to scare women who want abortions. This FACT was ignored by the Supreme Courts majority.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:27 pmPregnant American women who are thinking about getting an abortion should renew their passports now and start saving up for a trip to Canada or Europe where they can still get it.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pmI hope every woman who believes she has the right to give birth or not takes notice of this and participates in the ongoing effort to impeach these Nazis. It's your life, and it doesn't belong to them!
April 18th, 2007 at 5:28 pmI know John the Elder,
Let's arm the Fetus!!! More guns in the womb!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pmJohn the Elder,
The only women who ever terminate their pregnancies this late into it are because their life is in danger. It is that simple.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pmIt is really creepy to think people are for partially taking a human out of a women and then mashing its head until it dies. It is even creepier when the baby could have come a few more inches, pulled to safety, and go on to lead a full life. I am all for abortian rights, but this is barbaric to the max. Abortion should only be legal when the fetus is still to young to even have a remote chance of surviving outside the womb. If the baby is old enough to have a chance to survive and the womens life is in danger, we really should just remove the baby and fight for its life.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pmThis is a terrible day. I feel awful for the women who may want or need a D&E and will be so terrified of our government that they may go to some back alley or try to do it themselves.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pmDo not forget that scalito and roberts would not be on the court except for the Gang of 14 lead by rape gurney joe.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pmYeah, John the Elder, we know, you need more soldiers for failed Iraq war.
Can you answer me this; at what point do you people stop giving a crap about that precious little baby? 6 months old? 2 years old? We know you absolutely give a fu*k less at 18, so it has to be somewhere between when it squirts out the mom and 18 years old. I'd just like to know when that is.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pmJohn the Elder,
Do you have any understand of the reasons and arguments that people who support abortion rights articulate to defend their position, or do you just dismiss these people without even thinking about whether there might be any merit to what they believe? For example, do you know why they believe that it is untrue that the fetus is a human being? Or why the term "murder" is incorrectly applied to the termination of a fetus? Have you made any attempt to read any part of the huge literature on the morality of abortion in order to understand the complexity of the many moral, linguistic, neurological, and psychological issues?
I might take your last sentence as my inspiration and suggest that the world would be a better place if more people like you at least tried to make an effort to understand the other side.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:36 pmI know I sounded harsh and shrill to my friends, when I begged them to beg their Democratic Senators to filibuster the nominations of Roberts and Alioto (my senators are Cornyn and Hutchison, so begging those two NeoCons was a waste of time).
Now my friends know why I was so "harsh and shrill." I saw this coming!
April 18th, 2007 at 5:38 pmAre you volunteering?
How many babies can you handle?
What about all of the children that aren't adopted already?
What about all of the children that are bounced around foster care their entire lives?
Why don't you fu*king people start acting like you give a fu*k instead of saying you do.
Don't even get me started on all of the kids that starve everyday because of the republican "I got mine, so fu*k you" mentality. You people disgust me. All words and no substance.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:42 pmIs "partial birth" similar to partial virginity? What an ignorant term.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:43 pmWhy won't the Bush Administration let a fetus have a Social Security Number?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:46 pmIsn't the contention of the Anti-Abortionists, that when a fresh load load of jis is shot out of the torpedo tube, and rams home into the mother ship,another life is born?
Let's hear from the Anti-Abortionists, about why Bush is denying the fetus a Social Security Number!
The Supreme Court Jackoffs can be removed by impeachment. Just add the five to the list and clean out all the useless forkers at once.
Wouldn't it be nice to have an impeachment list that looked like a Chinese Restaurant Menu?
Column A, Choose one, President
April 18th, 2007 at 5:48 pmColumn B, Choose one, Vice-president
Column C, Choose five, Supreme Court Jackoffs
Column D, Choose forty, Republican Senaturds
Column E, Choose two hundred, Republican Misrepresentatives
Column F, Choose all you can eat, Right Wing-Nut Pundits
Column G, Choose one, Faux news
"It is really creepy to think people are for partially taking a human out of a women and then mashing its head until it dies."
How ignorant you are. I know of no one who is "pro-abortion," but I know of many, many people, including Republican parents of teenage girls, who have made the agonizing decision to have an abortion and were fortunate that it is still a safe and legal procedure.
I am not "for abortion" but I am for women's privacy in medical decisions and not destroying a medical doctor's options in treating women.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:51 pmFrom the moment he entered the White House, President Bush proclaimed the "doctor-patient relationship" the centerpiece of his policies when it comes to Americans' health care. Just not, as it turns out, for American women. As today's Supreme Court decision upholding the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act shows, President Bush and his Republican allies don't care much at all about the doctor-patient relationship when it comes to women's reproductive health and safety.
For the details, see:
April 18th, 2007 at 5:54 pm"The GOP War on the Doctor-Patient Relationship."
With the conservative, fundamentalist bent of the Repugnant party, who are in control of the SCOTUS, it is no wonder that they can now boldly display their contempt for women and women's rights and women's issues. It's the way they treat women -- under the guise of "taking care of their women and respecting their women," they actually keep women submissive and dependent upon their authoritarian rule.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pmIt never ceases to amaze how those who call themselves "pro-life" are the most adamant war hawks. It is astounding that they don't realize that there's something profoundly illogical in holding these two contradictory positions.
Furthermore, it is also quite amazing that Christians haven't progressed in a thousand years since they are still fighting Crusades, the current one being in Iraq.
How can right-wing Christians possibly call themselves "pro-life" when they have such a predisposition to kill?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:57 pmann,
You hit on the point. The republicans always think of things in black/white, all of/none of, yes/no. So, in their brains, if you aren't anti-abortion, then you are pro-abortion. Since, I don't have a uterus or a vagina, I am neither pro nor anti--abortion. I am not a women.
You ever notice that the biggest militants against abortions that blow up clinics and such are white, Christian males? Me thinks that they are angry that women are getting abortions and they aren't able to conceive babies. These are closeted trans gendered, self loathing hypocrites like Ted Haggard and Mark Foley.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:58 pmSpudge_Boy:
I am not sure if Roger_Roger is "volunteering" or how many babies he can handle by himself, but there is a shortage of newborn babies currently available to adopt out in this country. That would be a start, right?
April 18th, 2007 at 5:58 pm“Activist judges†do not LEAVE LAWS ALONE.
Comment by Elizabeth
Today's situation is changing the law as established by Roe v. Wade and several decisions since.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:59 pmTwo results from this ruling:1. The courts can Now decided when a proceedure is Medically Necessary. 2. The health of the woman is no longer paramount.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:01 pmThanks, ann at #37.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:02 pmI also don't know anyone who is "pro abortion."
What we are is pro privacy when women have to make an agonizing decision regarding their health and their lives.
I am old enough to remember young girls being sent away when they were pregnant, and forced to deliver babies, then give them up to "homes."
I also remember reading of the many desperate teenagers and adult women who died from sepsis, perforated wombs and other horrific complications from self-administered, or back-alley abortions.
Of course, the wealthy were always able to see a doctor who did these "on the side."
Elizabeth,
We know, you people can't stand having anything older than 6 months. I think you just answered my question to John the Elder. You fu*king people stop giving a fu*k about babies when they are 6 months old and are no longer babies. I specifically used the term kids. You know those things that are humans between the age of 0 and 18?
Oh and you didn't need to tell me Roger_Roger wasn't volunteering. He wouldn't volunteer to adopt a kid any faster than he would sign up and fight the Iraq occupation he supports.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:02 pm#31 - Comment by Mark Colby — April 18, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
"I might take your last sentence as my inspiration and suggest that the world would be a better place if more people like you at least tried to make an effort to understand the other side." (Comment to John the Elder)
Sorry, but you are asking John the Elder to do something he, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alioto and Kennedy are UNABLE to do, because they have a deep flaw in their souls.
They are UNABLE to look at an issue from ALL women's point of view. (They can ONLY look at the issue from the point of view of women who AGREE with them, for whatever reason.) Though they have mothers, and they may have sisters and wives, their drive to be superior and infallible distorts their reason and their compassion.
This moral failing is not a real problem with regard to John the Elder. His opinion does not have force of law, and he is thus ignorable.
The moral failing of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alioto and Kennedy diminishes this country and insults its people, because they act anything but impartially, and they DO affect the Law of the Land.
It is a sad day.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pmCZ-1:
Take that up with the Congress and President who CHANGED the law. The Supreme Court today merely agreed the change was constitutional. I, for one, don't want JUDGES to change law.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:03 pmWere these guys picked from the best judges in the country, or are they just political hacks who have been final say over the interpretation of law in this country? Why would any SCOTUS judge use this type of rhetoric under any circumstances.
Are these guys misogynists? It sure sounds like it.
Any minority (women included) who votes Republican is voting against his or her own humanity.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:04 pmSpudge_Boy:
Where did you ask John the Elder if there is a shortage of newborn babies currently available to adopt out in this country?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pmElizabeth: "“Activist judges†do not LEAVE LAWS ALONE."
Actually, according to the American Bar, Scalia has written decisions which would overturn laws more than any Supreme Court Justice in history. He's an extremely activist judge. He's the definition of activist - he stopped the state-sanctioned counting of votes in a presidential election and awarded the victory to one of the participants! Of course he's an activist judge.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:06 pmhterrya:
I can look at the issue from the point of view of Andrea Yates and still convict her of murder.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:07 pmI'd like to know why nobody can say the obvious about this court -- five of the nine are catholics and 4 out of the 5 catholics are fundamentalist catholics. Are their decisions informed by the leader of a foreign government? That would be treason.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:08 pmI didn't. Go back and read my post aimed at John the Elder, then the one to you and then you can put two and two together.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:09 pmWhat's rather amazing about the ruling is that two District Courts found the law to be unconstitutional, while a third found the ban to be a serious health risk to women. The three different Appeals Courts found the law to be unconsistutional.
SCOTUS swam upriver from those *six* courts and prior SCOTUS rulings.
That's not to say it's the first time that's happened. But this is a bit odd.
Something to keep in mind is the age of the Justices as we head towards 2008:
04/20/20 John Paul Stevens (GRF)
03/15/33 Ruth Bader Ginsburg (WJC)
03/11/36 Antonin Scalia (RWR)
07/23/36 Anthony Kennedy (RWR)
08/15/38 Stephen Breyer (WJC)
09/17/39 David Souter (GHWB)
06/23/48 Clarence Thomas (GHWB)
04/01/50 Samuel Alito (GWB)
01/27/55 John Roberts (GWB)
Stevens will be closing in on 89 when the next President is sworn in. To show that Clinton using his nominations to put in young guns, Ginsburg will be closing in on 76 while Breyer will be 70. Souter, who's been with the liberal wing a good deal, will be 60. Thomas, Alito and Roberts are all considerably younger. We know Scalia will sever until he drops dead. The risk isn't that the court will remain in the form it currently is. It's that it runs the risk of getting even more conservative.
John
April 18th, 2007 at 6:10 pmTake that up with the Congress and President who CHANGED the law. The Supreme Court today merely agreed the change was constitutional. I, for one, don’t want JUDGES to change law.
Comment by Elizabeth
I have [voted the bastards out], and I will again in the next election.
I, for one, want judges who want what's best for the people of this country, not what their over-inflated egos think is best for their hyper-conservative buddies with delusions of grandeur, a lust for power, and greed for money.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pmAs a member of Opus Dei, does Antonin Scalia serve the Pope or does he serve the citizens of the United States?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:12 pmPeople who label themselves in the same category as the current moron in chief are ignorant...no matter what level of appointment they have gained. They were appointed by ignorant people who label themselves the same as the moron in chief. Go figure.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:12 pmWell, for the first time ever I'm agreeing with Roger_Roger. I support a woman's right to choose but a nearly born baby is NOT a fetus. In my view, it's infanticide. If it's not, why are their clear punishments for the mother who gives birth, puts the baby into a plastic bag and then into the dumpster? What's the difference? To be honest, it was this policy that turned me off of the Clinton administration. Full disclosure: I'm a liberal Democrat and had an abortion myself 21 years ago in the earliest weeks of my first trimester.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:13 pmSo, you tell me -- a doctor is going to determine that a woman's life is in danger if she continues her pregnancy. His professional mandate will be to save the life of the mother. He WILL perform the procedure. Are you saying this doctor should be thrown in jail?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pmHowever, it doesn’t have to be that complex. Using modern approaches, you can create and improve tab-based interfaces in few minutes. With CSS, JavaScript, DHTML and XMLHttpRequest (alltogether Ajax) almost everything is possible. Information isn’t loaded in new windows, but loaded instantly with Ajax-based techniques. You can also use Back-button without worrying about losing your data.
Let’s take a look at some of the most interesting techniques we’ve found in the Web, searching for tab-based interface techniques.
The main idea behind grid-based designs is a solid visual and structural balance of web-sites you can create with them. Sophisticated layout structures offer more flexibility and enhance the visual experience of visitors. In fact, users can easier follow the consistency of the page, while developers can update the layout in a well thought-out, consistent way. However, it’s quite hard to find your way through all the theory behind grid systems: it isn’t easy at all. Some important notions and related key-facts can help to learn basics and keep essential techniques in mind.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:20 pmSpudge Boy:
I read your question, and it did not apply to me since I am involved in placing for adoption, newborns all the way up to 18 year olds. Next question?
Bluedog49:
The secret Catholic conspiracy theory was already floated on the original PBA thread. You probably liked the Da Vinci Code too. But, don't forget that KENNEDY, not Scalia, wrote this opinion.
jdw:
The lower courts were bound by Casey and the first Carhart decision.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:21 pmThe main idea behind grid-based designs is a solid visual and structural balance of web-sites you can create with them. Sophisticated layout structures offer more flexibility and enhance the visual experience of visitors. In fact, users can easier follow the consistency of the page, while developers can update the layout in a well thought-out, consistent way. However, it’s quite hard to find your way through all the theory behind grid systems: it isn’t easy at all. Some important notions and related key-facts can help to learn basics and keep essential techniques in mind.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pmAnd of course, it takes the only person on the court who has ever been pregnant to make sense.
As I have said before, this is the last gasp of the tired old white men who run this country. The country and the world have changed all around them but they still believe they are the only ones fit to rule. Unfortunately it is not in their nature to acquiese gracefully - they are going down swinging at everything and everyone they can. And yet, in the end it will be futile.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:22 pmBluedog49:
April 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pmThanks for vindicating me on my earlier statement to the effect of Scalia being an activist judge.
Is he actually a member of Opus Dei?
(Yikesee....)
#52 - Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Thanks for proving my points in my post #47:
"...you are asking John the Elder (and Elizabeth) to do something they, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alioto and Kennedy are UNABLE to do, because they have a deep FLAW in their souls.
They are UNABLE to look at an issue from ALL women’s point of view. (They can ONLY look at the issue from the point of view of women who AGREE with them, for whatever reason.) Though they have mothers, and they may have sisters and wives, their drive to be superior and infallible distorts their reason and their compassion.
This moral failing is not a real problem with regard to John the Elder (and Elizabeth, who unreasonably and pitilessly equates a woman seeking a legal abortion with Andrea Yates). Their opinion does not have force of law, and they are thus ignorable.
The moral failing of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alioto and Kennedy diminishes this country and insults its people, because they act anything but impartially, and they DO affect the Law of the Land.
It is a sad day.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:23 pmgridlock
April 18th, 2007 at 6:24 pmRoger_Roger, next time you got pregnant, do not abort. I repeat: DO NOT ABORT.
Otherwise, STFU.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:26 pmElizabeth,
I thought we were all on The List(tm) of people you are going to ignore. It must be weird posting under a girls name. But, hey to each his own or her own as it may be.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:30 pmCZ-1:
The Founding Fathers never envisioned the judiciary serving as an extra Legislature.
Bluedog49:
Scalia does not serve the Pope. His oath of office was to "well and faithfully discharge the duties" of Supreme Court Justice and to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." He swore to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same" taking the obligation "freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." To answer your question about throwing a doctor in jail, if he violated the law, yes. Same as when Scooter Libby violated the law.
kasinca:
Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by Bush. From all accounts, he has a brilliant legal mind. You are calling Roberts "ignorant"?
impeachcheneythenbush:
I'm a Democrat as well, but I haven't had any induced abortions. I agree with you on this one.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pmOkay.
So, are you saying Scalia is a grid or is he a technique?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:33 pmhterrya:
What point did I prove for you? I am not equating a woman seeking a legal abortion with Andrea Yates. Even after today, the mother who obtains an illegal PBA won't be charged, just her doctor.
Spudge_Boy:
What are you talking about?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:35 pmAnd they wonder why the younger generation has no respect for the law.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pmOne more thing for all your folks who oppose a woman's right to choose: whether you know it or not, some woman you know well, probably some woman to whom you are related has had an abortion. I have never asked anyone who didn't say, " I have, my sister, my mother, my aunt, my grandmother . . . " I guarntee this - they may never tell you because they know you will judge them. Or maybe it's you - and now you are trying to hide by denying the choice to other women.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:41 pmthe list, elizabeth, the list............ you know........ nudge nudge wink wink, know whatta mean, know whatta mean............
April 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pmGee I wonder.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:47 pmNo, Raven, I don't know what you mean.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:49 pm#72 - Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
"I am not equating a woman seeking a legal abortion with Andrea Yates."
From your comment in #52, it seemed CLEAR that you WERE, "...equating a woman seeking a legal abortion with Andrea Yates."
So, Comment #52 was just another of your thowaway comments design to dliberately inflame the conversation and divert & distract from the main issue of this thread.
Thanks for clarifying.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pmwhy is Scalia gesticulating like a third world dictator?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pmhterrya:
It's called an ANALOGY. I didn't mean to inflame the conversation and divert & distract from the main issue of this thread though. I'm just responding to your posts.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pmLook people, even after today's ruling, the mother who obtains an illegal partial-birth abortion won’t be charged with any crime or fined, just her doctor.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pm#70
April 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pmAs per the minority opinion...this ruling was not about law, it is against women's rights. They are ignorant people who label themselves in the same party as the moron in chief. What else can be said?
Look people, even after today’s ruling, the mother who obtains an illegal partial-birth abortion won’t be charged with any crime or fined, just her doctor.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Ok genius! No, they will be laying in a gutter dying because they tried to do it themselves because no doctor will. What the F*ck is your point?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm#80 - Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Since you found it necessary to reiterate your comment in #72, about who gets arrested now, thanks to Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alioto and Kennedy, I'll reiterate my comment in #66:
The moral failing of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alioto and Kennedy diminishes this country and insults its people, because they act anything but impartially, and they DO affect the Law of the Land.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:10 pmWhy is this an issue?
We, as women, have the right to decide what to do with our bodies.
(How would you men like to sign up for a 50/50 lottery on becoming a enuich as a treatment for the population surge?
It may be a stretch, but not by much.
It is a fetus. Stop with the "baby" talk.
Even when the Puritans came over, they could elect to end a pregnancy before movement and a heartbeat was heard.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:11 pmkasinca:
"What else you could say" would be to answer my question: Are you calling Chief Justice Roberts “ignorant�
Bluedahlia:
No need to curse. You stepped in the middle of a conversation I was having with someone else. My point in that post was to show her that I was not equating a woman seeking a legal abortion with Andrea Yates.
hterrya:
After you are done reiterating, can you answer what point you think I proved for you? As i told you, I am not equating a woman seeking a legal abortion with Andrea Yates.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pmThe moral failing of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alioto and Kennedy diminishes this country and insults its people, because they act anything but impartially, and they DO affect the Law of the Land.
And Ginsburg is completely impartial?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:26 pmThank you Justice Ginsburg for doing the right thing.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm#85 - Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
Read Comment #78
April 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pmYep.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:35 pm"“Partial†= baby completely delivered except for the head.
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 5:18 pm"
The head is what comes out FIRST... otherwise it's a breach and usually results in the death of both the child and mother...
A decade a ago a friend of mine discovered that her 7 month old FETUS had a brain stem, but no head. Technically, it was alive because of the stem. She needed to have an abortion or could risk her own life when the fetus eventually died in her womb. You'd rather she have carry a non-viable life to term and risk her own life? You people are sincerely demented.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm"It is really creepy to think people are for partially taking a human out of a women and then mashing its head until it dies.
Comment by Roger_Roger — April 18, 2007 @ 5:31 pm"
That isn't what happens... If the brain stem is punctured, there is immediate death (why people who are serious about suicide blow their heads off. You are your brain. When it dies - you're gone). It's painless and doesn't require 'mashing until it dies'... Stupid ignorants...
April 18th, 2007 at 7:43 pm"How can right-wing Christians possibly call themselves “pro-life†when they have such a predisposition to kill?
Comment by Willy — April 18, 2007 @ 5:57 pm"
I think they mean pro-their-own-lives...
The bible is one of the most violent and immoral books in print... So it doesn't surprise me when those who worship an evil god, perpetuate that evil and call it 'good'...
April 18th, 2007 at 7:46 pmIt's apparent that Jake has changed his name to Elizabeth.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:49 pmGINSBURG: Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician- gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctor.” A fetus is described as an “â€unborn child,â€Â” and as a “â€baby....."
That's what I noticed right off the bat. How can the Justices of the top court in this country be taken seriously, when they're using the f*cking pro-lifers language.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pmBy all accounts, an average Iraqi feels more pain has we blow him to bits than does that unborn fetus.
Maybe some life is more sacred than the other? I don't know. Not according to the Bible but I have not read Pat Robertson's version of the bible yet.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pmReligious fanatics, you're off the abortion "hook"... your god supports abortions:
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.†Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion�
Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.†In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped upâ€. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped openâ€. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?
http://www.evilbible.com/god%27s%20not%20pro-life.htm
April 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pmIn case "Elizabeth" makes another throwaway comment designed to dliberately inflame the conversation and divert & distract from the main issue of this thread, and you wonder why the comment receives no response from me, I'm taking a SANITY break from "Elizabeth" (a.k.a., Jake), John the Elder, Roger_Roger, rabidbunny, et. al.
Watching Olbermann filet all the NeoCon demagogues restores my hope that the nation is coming to its senses. Then I'll BRB!
April 18th, 2007 at 7:54 pmThat's right, rabidbunny, Ginsburg is completely impartial and "doing the right thing."
hterrya:
I read your post number 78 and that does not prove anything.
Spudge_Boy:
Thank you for at least answering the question.
unbelievable:
Have you seen an intact D&E in person? Here is a description from a nurse who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: “‘Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms — everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .
“‘The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and
the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
“‘The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a highpowered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . .
“‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’â€
April 18th, 2007 at 7:55 pmWhy this crazy nonsense is losing members for the religious right:
Religious Identification Among American Adults
The first area of inquiry in ARIS 2001 concerns the response of American adults to the question: "What is your religion, if any?" This question generated more than a hundred different categories of response, which we classified into the sixty-five categories shown in Exhibit 1 below.
In 1990, ninety percent of the adult population identified with one or another religion group. In 2001, such identification has dropped to eighty-one percent.
Where possible, every effort was made to re-create the categories respondents offered to the nearly identical question as in the NSRI 1990 survey.
As is readily apparent from the first Exhibit below, the major changes between the results of the 1990 survey and the current survey are:
a. the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001;
b. although the number of adults who classify themselves in non-Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to about 7.7 million, the proportion of non-Christians has increased only by a very small amount - from 3.3 % to about 3.7 %;
c. the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001
d. there has also been a substantial increase in the number of adults who refused to reply to the question about their religious preference, from about four million or two percent in 1990 to more than eleven million or over five percent in 2001.
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm
April 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pmAnd also, if the fetus was viable outside the womb, then it could be delivered by C section, and neither the mother or baby would be in much danger. But this procedure is used in cases where the fetus is still just a fetus, as it is much less invasive to the mother.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:59 pmStupid, stupid people are supporting this ban. They are incapable of change until this situation happens to one of their own loved ones.
I just talked to my lovely daughter-in-law, doing her residency at UCLA. She tells me she knows no one who is working to be an "abortion doctor." The language in this ruling is outrageous. They aren't even hiding their agenda anymore.
I have read the comments here and am just horrified at the nonsense that people believe about this procedure. We are talking about nonviability, people. Fetuses without heads, for instance. For crying out loud, you would endanger the life of a woman for a fetus with no head! By the way, there is no procedure called partial birth abortion; that's just another lie made up by abortion opponents to interject emotion into the debate.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pmDr. Haskell’s approach, of course, is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved†since his presentation. Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.†Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it.
Some doctors performing an intact D&E attempt to remove the fetus without collapsing the skull. Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,†not a full birth. The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull†and kill the fetus before it is born. Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some
April 18th, 2007 at 8:01 pmmovement of limbs,†according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.â€
It was the right decision. One of many to come. There is no coherent argument for saying that abortion of any kind is constitutionally protected. This is a victory for democracy.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:02 pmI am leaving this comment and not going to bother reading the response, given how vitrolic some folks on this board are...
Many of you paint all of us Christians with a broad brush, which is unfair and you are being as ignorant as you claim we are (perhaps more so).
I am a Christian and a Democrat. I strongly believe in every progressive principle that all of you stand for, just not late-term abortion. I am a pacifist, against the death penalty, for gun control, an avid environmentalist, pro gay rights, very anti-Bush, etc. But in keeping with my principles, I believe it is wrong to kill a fetus that is inevitably going to be a baby. Yes, it is different if the woman's life is in danger. It is definitely different.
So please do not be so ignorant to think that we are all fighting crusades and such. Trust me, I dislike Pat Robertson as much as you. He is not what I stand for. And please respect that many of us believe in most of the same things that you believe, it is just that some of us take the view that aborting a fetus is wrong.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:03 pm“‘He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.’â€
Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 7:55 pm"
I find it highly suspect that a medical practitioner would call a fetus a 'baby'.
The cow or chicken you'll have for dinner tonight went through a lot worse than snip and it's over... Perhaps you should really clarify that you're "Pro-white-human-fetus-life", because really, your side is so obessed with thinking a fetus is a baby that you miss that it isn't.
You never answered my question about my friend who had to have an abortion at 7 months or die... Of course not... Because you aren't actually pro-life...
April 18th, 2007 at 8:03 pmScalia has been called an activist several times on this thread. I challenge anyone here to cite an instance when Scalia shared his personal view on whether or not abortion should be legal. If he has said such a thing it would be easy to find because he would be widely quoted for expressing such a view.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:06 pmThis is a victory for democracy.
Comment by mandolin
Unless one is a woman.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:06 pmWhen women die because this stupid law is in effect, I hope their families sue the righteous justices.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:07 pmZooey,
April 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pmWhy is abortion a constitutional right?
Because you aren’t actually pro-life…
Comment by unbelievable
Hell, she's not even Elizabeth. Hi, Jake! You frickin' assh*le.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:08 pmunbelievable - of course she isn't pro-life. She's pro-fetus. The mother's life is meaningless to these people.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pmMatthew,
It's not a late term abortion.
Read up and get back to us.
-Oh Yeah. Raised Irish Catholic. Don't lecture me - I've had it all.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pmZooey, a guy posing as a woman on the internets? Say it isn't so!
April 18th, 2007 at 8:11 pm"I am leaving this comment and not going to bother reading the response, given how vitrolic some folks on this board are…
Comment by Matthew — April 18, 2007 @ 8:03 pm"
As long as you lump yourselves under the same label as these people, you shouldn't be surprised when the consequences of tolerating them make you accomplices.
Read the bible. I didn't write it. Don't blame me for being the messenger in how bloody and immoral it is.
Hiding your head in the sand and avoiding the replies to your post doesn't exactly give you a lot of credibility. Especially after you did exactly what you say you dislike. Whatever... Just further evidence in the irrationality of 'belief'.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:11 pmDevil's Advocate,
April 18th, 2007 at 8:15 pmYour remark shows that you know nothing about how the Judicial branch works. If you want to pass blame you should look to the legislators that passed the law. It's simply the job of the court to determine whether or not that law violates the constitution. It did not and that's why we have the decision today.
Okay, well I did decide I look at the remarks because I just couldn't resist.
"trueblue", I apologize if I am wrong about it being late-term abortion. If it is not that, what is it?
And "unbelievable", I agree that the Bible is bloody and immoral. I have read it. I don't see what that has to do with my previous comments.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:17 pm"The mother’s life is meaningless to these people.
Comment by Candyce — April 18, 2007 @ 8:10 pm"
Because we are just semen recepticles and incubators to these folks...
Women weren't even considered human beings by the Catholic church until 632... and even then, just by one vote...
I don't get why any woman would tolerate being seen as a second-class citizen in this day and age. I really don't.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:20 pm#105 I challenge anyone here to cite an instance when Scalia shared his personal view on whether or not abortion should be legal. Both Scalia and Clarence Thomas are on record as being in favor of OVERTURNING Roe v. Wade.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pmThat's not a personal opinion, but it's pretty easy to deduce where they are coming from.
A state could have passed a law REQUIRING partial birth abortions for mothers who were at health risk and Scalia would have upheld the law. The problem is no one here understands Scalia's philosophy, but they should really take the time to learn it because many times it puts him on the side of the liberal.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:23 pmZooey,
Why is abortion a constitutional right?
Comment by mandolin
Roe v. Wade
April 18th, 2007 at 8:23 pm"I agree that the Bible is bloody and immoral. I have read it. I don’t see what that has to do with my previous comments.
Comment by Matthew — April 18, 2007 @ 8:17 pm"
Sigh, of course not...
I'd explain, as I personally am dedicated to exposing the dangers in 'belief' systems over 'thought' systems, but I needed to go five minutes ago. If I get a chance later, I'll explain.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:23 pmZooey, a guy posing as a woman on the internets? Say it isn’t so!
Comment by Candyce
Well, Elizabeth's alter-ego, Jake, pretends to be human -- so it's not much of a stretch.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:24 pmI am not Jake, but some of my posts are disappearing just like that other thread.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:25 pmI did answer you, unbelievable. Maybe that post will reappear for you later.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:26 pmZooey,
April 18th, 2007 at 8:26 pmThat's a good start but what specific part of the Constitution(after all, if something is unconstitutional that would mean it violates some part of the Constitution) makes abortion unconstitututional?
Elizabeth,
April 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pmWhat kind of posts are they removing?
I am not Jake, but some of my posts are disappearing just like that other thread.
Comment by Elizabeth
Too bad, Jake.
Join the club of the disappearing comments. **yawn**
April 18th, 2007 at 8:28 pmZooey,
That’s a good start but what specific part of the Constitution(after all, if something is unconstitutional that would mean it violates some part of the Constitution) makes abortion unconstitututional?
Comment by mandolin
Why are you asking me? I am not a constitutional scholar. Look it up yourself.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pmIt's concerning to me that a non-profit organization is censoring speech. Are they political statements or are the being removed because they are vulgar?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:31 pmZooey,
April 18th, 2007 at 8:34 pmThe point is no one knows. A phrase called substantive due process was invented by the court to allow such a decision. This should be concerning to conservatives and liberals alike because it affects us both.
What kind of comments do they delete that you have made?
Sorry I can't stay around for your responses. TP is probally reading over your writings before they are allowed to be posted. Later
April 18th, 2007 at 8:37 pmmandolin:
I was simply answer the questions above, and quoted directly from the Supreme Court case. It was pretty graphic testimony from a nurse about delivering a fetus except for the head. I think unbelievable was saying that was not how the procedure worked.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:41 pmunbelievable:
Did you read the opinion?
April 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pmWhat kind of comments do they delete that you have made?
Comment by mandolin
Basically, I think abortion comes under the right to privacy, which is fuzzy in the constitution. I like to think of abortion as a right for a woman to control her body. Is there any part of your body society is interested in controlling for 9 months, or 9 months and a subsequent lifetime? Didn't think so.
There is a difference between deleted comments and "disappearing" or "non-appearing" comments. Mine are usually deleted because I like to use the f-word and disgusting imagery. On a day like this, when TP is quite busy, some comments get lost in the ether. No, we don't like it, TP needs to update their system -- again. It happens to all of us -- not just you trolls.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pmMatthew,
The term itself is misleading.
The second trimester, the fetus is not viable.
Calling it "partial birth" is totally misleading.
A fetus @ ~ 4 months is 6 1/2 inches. No bone.
Not a baby.
My poor sister had to go through a forced birth because her baby had severe dwarfism that endangered her life.
There was no way that baby was viable, or ever going to be viable, but it could have killed my sister.
I feel this is a step backwards.
We may disagree on some philosophy, but in the end we need to care for those that are here, living and breathing.
(BTW: The Insurance Co. denied coverage although the Dr.'s said she'd die. She actually had to sue to get them to recognize her proceedure. Nice.)
April 18th, 2007 at 8:43 pm(BTW: The Insurance Co. denied coverage although the Dr.’s said she’d die. She actually had to sue to get them to recognize her proceedure. Nice.)
Comment by trueblue
That's sick.
Of course, it would have been cheaper for the insurance company if your sister had died. They don't care.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:49 pmI'm going to exercise my freedom of speech and say: The majority in this case are all A-holes. They don't want justice. They want perverted justice which favors one side, the rightwing nuts who call themselves conservatives. The very fact that an ignorant A-hole can set on the highest court in the land and already have his mind made up before the case is heard is not justice, it's injustice and hypocracy. They act more like nazi judges who justified what Hitler and his murdering friends did. Their excuse was that Hitler was chancelor and his made the laws regardless whether they were considered just of not. When our Supreme Court Justices started becoming conservatives and Republicans they stopped being fair.
I have argued for years that our system needs to be changed to a system where qualified candidates are chosen randomly rather than by a set of pre-existing beliefs. If lower court judges already had their minds made up about certain cases, we might was well say: "Bring the guilty bastard in" laws will become standard under our system.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:51 pmUnfortunately, Zooey,
April 18th, 2007 at 8:51 pmYou are probably right.
trueblue,
Thank you for the reasonable response, more than can be said of many others here. I understand your view, especially given the personal experience. And I would definitely say save my wife before any baby, though I am very happy that she has given birth to two beautiful boys in the last 3 years.
As I mentioned before, I care just as much about the "living and breathing", hence my views on pacifism, etc. But I guess we vary in terms of what we view as living and breathing.
And as for "unbelievable"... if you read this, I want to point out that my belief system is also a thought system, and I think it is perfectly legitimate to view a fetus as a life. That has nothing to do with my religion. It makes sense to me, perhaps it doesn't to you. But in your own "thought system" you should leave some room for diverging opinions.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:01 pm#57 BlueDog,
That is the same kind of smear anti-Catholic bigots used against Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
I don't think you want to be in that company.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:04 pm#57 BlueDog,
That is the same kind of smear anti-Catholic bigots used against Al Smith in 1928 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
I don’t think you want to be in that company.
Comment by Exley — April 18, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Says the ExLax that smears women, and secularists, simply because they want to choose what to do with their own bodies.
You're a hypocrite as usual Exlax.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:11 pmAnd as for “unbelievableâ€â€¦ if you read this, I want to point out that my belief system is also a thought system, and I think it is perfectly legitimate to view a fetus as a life. That has nothing to do with my religion. It makes sense to me, perhaps it doesn’t to you. But in your own “thought system†you should leave some room for diverging opinions. Comment by Matthew — April 18, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
A fetus is a life, just not one that can exist outside of a womb. Your dinner also was a life. Neither of these are a child however (one hopes). You claim to base your opinions on *thought*, but this posts demonstrates you aren't thinking about this.
Your sperm is also alive, as are the eggs in your wife's ovaries. Every time you let one of them escape without making a baby, it's murder by your definition...
If you have a brain, use it.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:13 pmMatthew,
As the mother of a wonderful 17 year old daughter, I believe we have some shared precious moments that can have one projecting feelings to a "baby". (fetus)
However, what constitutes a baby is where we may differ.
As I said many posts ago, even when the Puritans came to this country, women had the option of ending a pregnancy as long as they didn't feel movement.
If we are sliding back before the 1600's in our thinking, I feel sorrow.
Thanks for listening.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pmMatthew,
Your comment in #138 about belief systems being thought systems and that other people's thought systems "should leave some room for diverging opinions" is false. The reason is this. Thought systems, whether about nature, mathematics, religion, politics or morality always involve, whether explicitly or implicitly, a claim to truth. No one knowingly wants a false thought system. The same holds for an opinion or belief. No one knowingly wants to hold a false opinion or belief, and rational people change their opinions or beliefs if and when they discover that they are false. (Refusal to revise one's belief or opinion when one has discovered that it is false is a sign of irrationality.) Insofar as anyone claims to be thinking, the goal of truth is unavoidable.
What this means for the abortion debate is this. If we have two thought systems on abortion, one claiming that abortion is morally permissible and the other that it is impermissible, it is impossible to hold that both systems are equally correct. This is a matter of logic, which cuts across religions, moralities, ideologies, cultures, and everything else. So what you want of Unbelievable is impossible. If your thought system on abortion is correct, then his must be false, and vice versa. It is impossible to have "diverging opinions" when they both claim to be true and they are logically incompatible with each other.
Here's a simple example. My opnion is that It's raining" and your is that "It's not raining." As a matter of logic, we cannot both be right. One of us must be wrong. No divergence of opinions is possible. Only one opinion about whether or not it's raining is the correct one. The same principle applies for abortion, cloning, the death penalty or any other issue about which people disagree.
This post has been brought to you by a professor of philosophy in an attempt to clarify the nature of reasoning and truth.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:23 pmDuring the 1928 election, one Democratic campaign worker in North carolina estimated "the anti-Catholic literature dumped into her state alone must have cost at least a million dollars." Pamphlets mailed to voters' homes warned that a vote for Al Smith "means a vote for the Pope above the President, the Canon Law above the Constitution, and the Papal Rag above the American flag."
Michael Schwartz, "The Persistent Prejudice," 1984
In 1960, Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike wrote a book titled "A Catholic In The White House," in which he stated, "No voter should vote against any candidate simply on the ground of religion .... [The question becomes] complicated only in the case of a Roman Catholic candidate." Pike asked "to what degree a Roman Catholic President would be subject to various ecclesiastical pressures, and the degree to which a Roman Catholic President would really be able to enter into occasions reflecting our pluralistic society."
Election analysts have estimated that Kennedy's Catholicism cost him nearly five million votes. Paul F. Boller, "Presidential campaigns" (New York, NY, 1984)
April 18th, 2007 at 9:23 pmVVGFU,
You may find religious prejudice acceptable. I and most other people here do not.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pmThis post has been brought to you by a professor of philosophy in an attempt to clarify the nature of reasoning and truth.
Comment by Mark Colby
Amazing....I learn something new every time you comment. Thanks!
April 18th, 2007 at 9:29 pmDr. Colby,
Your post was wonderful, but as a Professor you must know that you cannot beat one over the head with a view totally against what they may believe.
It only serves to dig the trenches of the different opinions deeper.
We learn little by little. One piece at a time.
Give Matthew time.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:33 pmThis country needs a discussion on when human life begins. Unborn "fetuses" are most definitely human life. Their status I think depends on their age and development. Come on, use some comon sense here. Are you really saying that a 8 month old 'fetus' is not a baby? Of course it is.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:34 pmWe do need to throw them (conservatives) a bone occaisionally to keep them from really going nuts.
This is acceptable.
Scalia is a scary dude.
I think things will hold with the supremes until 08.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:34 pmCarnage is ok as long as its in another country involving non-American people.
comment by Jake
April 18th, 2007 at 9:37 pmZooey,
You're welcome. I have my own axes to grind, like anyone else, but I'd like to think that I can contribute something about the nature of reasoning and the like so that those who are willing to think about their own thinking, and possibly improve their thinking, will know what the best human minds have thought about this. (I'm not including myself in this description. I'm just referring to people like Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Mill, and the like.) Thinking well is color-, race-, sex-, creed-, ethnicity, and culture-blind and is neutral about all the political, moral, and legal issues that people address on TP.
By the way, I've been accused by some troll-people on TP of being "autocratic." (One was Mighty Aphrodite in her current incarnation, I believe.) If I am, then I'm being paid a lot of money by an elite college to be autocratic with my students. What some ignorant people call "autocratic" I, and about 25 centuries of philosophical thinking, prefer to call "rationality" and "logic."
April 18th, 2007 at 9:38 pmShelly,
Please see my post at #31. For those who have thoroughly investigated the matter of the morality of abortion, such as theologians and philosophers, it's not clear that a fetus is a baby. These are all distinct terms. The moral issue is about what they mean and what they should mean. "Zygote," "fetus," "baby," and "child" are highly problematic. The difficulty with the average citizen is that he doesn't understand this, and unintentionally trivializes the deep moral and linguistic issues by dogmatically assuming that their meanings are clear. They're not, alas. If they were, theologians and philosophers wouldn't spend their lives struggling to make sense of the issue of abortion. And there wouldn't be a need for a Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:43 pmTrueblue,
I know that you're right, and I usually resist my impulse to post here, but sometimes I can't resist trying to clarify what's at stake. Perhaps it's a residue of my idealism or the teacher in me--the hope against hope that a little of the darkness can give way to light.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:46 pmDr. Colby,
Certainly there is a point at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb?
I'm not sure if you are saying an 8 1/2 month term pregnancy is the same as a 16-24 week pregnancy?
Who knows when life begins?
Is it the first breath?
Is it the moment the fetus can be viable without the mother?
Heady questions, for sure.
(BTW: I believe this decision is awful.)
Anyway, thank you for your posts. I have found them ....
thought provoking.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:54 pmFu king activist judges.
April 18th, 2007 at 9:54 pmSomeone please tell me that something can be done to stop this madness. Will there be doctors of conscious who will help a woman who needs this procedure? Will there be a network of help available to my daughter if she ever needs one? Just when I celebrated the global warming verdict and I thought my daughter's future looked bright, I now have to hear this shit? I can just see the compassionate conservatives honing their claws to start fighting. Oh, God, and I have to look at the sneer on my conservative coworkers face tomorrow morning. Let's get out and work harder than we worked in '04. Give till you can't anymore because you see what we are up against.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:01 pmIf you dont have a uterus shut the f**ck up!!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 10:05 pmThank you trueblue for that support. I am trying to be open-minded. What I posted earlier about my beliefs was just that, my beliefs.
Mr. Colby, I completely understand what you are saying. Perhaps I had the semantics wrong about thought versus belief. I was just trying to point out that I think my beliefs on abortion are consistent with my other beliefs. I was trying to point out that not all Christians are warmongers, as someone else implied. I am not saying that I am right and "unbelievable" is wrong. I did not say that anywhere.
It seems that everyone responding to me (with the exception of trueblue) is just attacking me personally, or guilt by association since I claim to be a Christian, or dealing with semantics. I only wanted to point out that not everything is so black and white to (all) us Christians.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:17 pmrfinca:
Actually, activist judges try to CHANGE laws not rule that exisiting laws are constitutional.
meg_mac:
I have a uterus. Plenty of us pro-lifers do. In fact, during embryonic development the uterus forms from the fusion of the two Mullerian ducts. Therefore, EVERY unborn female fetus has a uterus too.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:20 pmIf you dont have a uterus shut the f**ck up!!!!
Comment by meg_mac
I should have thought of that earlier! :D
April 18th, 2007 at 10:21 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus,
You have proven that the attacks on my posts are a matter of semantics, rather than substance (not to mention the personal attacks, as well).
So just to clarify, since you couldn't deduce this from my post: I view the fetus as a life that will inevitably become a human being. It may even be a child in the womb, but again this is a matter of semantics.
All I know is that I saw the sonograms for my two sons as they were growing in my wife and I viewed them as our children. You can't argue with that... though I'm sure you'll find a way =)
April 18th, 2007 at 10:23 pmsounds kinda technical ther, dearie.. does ya talk like this all thetyme?
April 18th, 2007 at 10:24 pmguess i don't matter longsya got the utarus.
ya got everytn else2/
Elizabeth.... you missed the point. i dont want a man or you deciding for me whether i have a child or not. will you take care of the child you force me to have? will the evangelical hypocrites that tell me abortion is wrong but vote for a president en masse who then sends thousands to die in Iraq take care of my unwanted child conceived by rape or incest? i think not! It is easy for you to pontificate from your computer while poor women across the world suffer the burden of unwanted pregnancies.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:25 pmMatthew,
There's nothing wrong whatsoever with saying that you're right and that someone else, like Unbelievable, is wrong. My point was that this conflict is unavoidable when people's opinions are logically incompatible. It's exactly what we should expect given what thought tries to do--reach the truth--and people's thinking yields incompatible conclusions, such as about whether abortion is morally right or wrong. I wasn't commenting on the question of whether your views on abortion are consistent with your other views since I don't know what your other views are.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:27 pmI'm not Jake, Zooey.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:27 pmThe abortion of the Supremes will come in due time asshats. Due time.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:29 pmmeg_mac:
There's a shortage of newborn babies available for adoption in this country, so if you or any other poor women suffering the burden of unwanted pregnancies are willing to put him or her up for adoption, I can get you the names and phone numbers of agencies in your state to do just that. And I am, by no means, defending Bush on Iraq.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:31 pmI’m not Jake, Zooey.
Comment by Elizabeth
Ok, Jake.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:32 pmMr. Colby,
No problem, thanks for the clarification. My other views were mentioned in an earlier post, that is why I referenced them (though that was a very general post).
I see what you mean about thought systems, I did not know the exact definition. My original point to "unbelievable" was not really related to that, but rather to his bias against Christians.
I hardly ever post on anything online, but thanks for the good debate.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:34 pm"And “unbelievableâ€, I agree that the Bible is bloody and immoral. I have read it. I don’t see what that has to do with my previous comments.
Comment by Matthew — April 18, 2007 @ 8:17 pm"
Okay... You said:
"I am leaving this comment and not going to bother reading the response, given how vitrolic some folks on this board are…
Many of you paint all of us Christians with a broad brush, which is unfair and you are being as ignorant as you claim we are (perhaps more so).
I am a Christian and a Democrat. I strongly believe in every progressive principle that all of you stand for, just not late-term abortion. I am a pacifist, against the death penalty, for gun control, an avid environmentalist, pro gay rights, very anti-Bush, etc. But in keeping with my principles, I believe it is wrong to kill a fetus that is inevitably going to be a baby. Yes, it is different if the woman’s life is in danger. It is definitely different.
So please do not be so ignorant to think that we are all fighting crusades and such. Trust me, I dislike Pat Robertson as much as you. He is not what I stand for. And please respect that many of us believe in most of the same things that you believe, it is just that some of us take the view that aborting a fetus is wrong.
Comment by Matthew — April 18, 2007 @ 8:03 pm"
You started out your post with an insult, and then equally painted those of us who dislike (and detest) belief systems that reject facts for an ideology conceived in a violent culture with little to no awareness of science - as ignorant.
It isn't WE who are ignorant.
Few Christians have read teh bible from cover to cover, and most just define their religion as something that fits their own personal view anyway. Why not go one step farther and just think for yourselves?
Belief systems are ignorant of facts. That was one of my issues with your post. That people who choose to abide by belief systems with a violent history neither have the right nor the capacity to call themselves 'pro-life' nor 'informed'. To do so is hypocrisy at it's fullest.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:40 pmElizabeth... well you just absolved yourself of the problem didnt you? let someone else take care of the problem. Your attitude is EXACTLY the issue. Put the kid up for adoption and wash your hands. tsk tsk!!! as long as your minister is happy with you you can sleep at night!
April 18th, 2007 at 10:42 pmunbelievable,
I think I fairly called people ignorant who assume all Christians have the same beliefs. We obviously do not. Perhaps it is an insult, but that is only one compared to the endless ones you have written.
So just to educate you... I am from the Mennonite tradition, which has been based on peace and justice since formed in the sixteenth century. The Christian tradition before that time was indeed violent, but again you keep heaping upon me guilt by association, even though I chose a denomination that has always disavowed violence.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:48 pm"And as for “unbelievableâ€â€¦ if you read this, I want to point out that my belief system is also a thought system,"
No it isn't. Your belief system requires you to believe in a lot of stuff that no thinking person would ever accept. It requires you to do as you are told (hence - commandments). It requires you to ignore fcats for faith. They are opposites. To tell yourself otherwise is simply foolish.
I love, by the way, how you insult us and then whine when we aren't so humble in return. You get what you give. Next time, act as you'd like to be treated and you just might find it...
"and I think it is perfectly legitimate to view a fetus as a life. That has nothing to do with my religion. It makes sense to me, perhaps it doesn’t to you."
You just 'feel it' or 'believe it'. That's utterly devoid of facts and thinking. It's self-deceptive.
I don't disagree that a fetus is a life. It's just not a conscious, viable life. And therefore, I think better to terminate that life than the life of it's viable, conscious mother who will possibly die without these abortions.
"But in your own “thought system†you should leave some room for diverging opinions.
Comment by Matthew — April 18, 2007 @ 9:01 pm"
I do when they are other thought systems. I have little to no tolerate for irrational belief systems because they are routinely divisive, violent, selfish and illogical. The proof of their inherent danger is in the fact that people will rationalize anything. Just like you rationalize being a jerk toward us and the fact that we didn't cower in return.
You don't think. It's apparent to those of us who do.
April 18th, 2007 at 10:50 pmElizabeth..... p.s. Why are Americans going to other countries to adopt children? Because they dont want to adopt a crack baby or a baby that has been compromised by poor healthcare in the US. Think about it. What right do you have imposing your beliefs on me. i say NONE!!!! and by the way.... i have had two successful pregnancies and am soooo proud of my two sons!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 10:57 pm"So what you want of Unbelievable is impossible. If your thought system on abortion is correct, then his must be false, and vice versa. It is impossible to have “diverging opinions†when they both claim to be true and they are logically incompatible with each other.
Comment by Mark Colby — April 18, 2007 @ 9:23 pm"
That's why I stopped playing nice as the thought police around here keep demanding.
Playing nice isn't realistic when one side wishes to force the other side to their viewpoint. I intend to convert no one. I just refuse to allow people like Matthew who claim that they get special priveleges for being willfully ignorant.
These same thought police don't tolerate people who post derogatory commentary about women. Yet, they are willing to give a pass to a system that has caused more harm and damage than any other, in its name. I personally don't get it. And I'm with Charles Dawkins when he says that religion gets no special passes on criticism.
By pointing out the gaping holes in thought systems, the goal is to "train" these people who think they have some higher right as a result of their religious beliefs to consider the consequences of their holier-than-thou sanctimony.
If Matthew and those like him are not tolerated, then while I don't care if they change their viewpoints, perhaps it is they who will learn to give the same respect to other thought systems that they themselves demand and expect.
Oh, and I'm a she :)
April 18th, 2007 at 11:01 pm#157 Comment by Elizabeth — April 18, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Please… They changed a law that the federal court in three different states said was legal. You don’t get more activist than that.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:02 pmMs. unbelievable,
You are definitely right about everything. I can't believe I missed it all. Thank you for enlightening me. From now on I will start thinking and hope to some day as be as enlightened as you, so that I can talk down to anyone who disagrees with me and insult them continuously. Well-crafted!
And to respond to your post #171, though it does not deserve the dignity of a response, I had already retracted what I said about belief versus thought because I had the semantics wrong and it wasn't even my point anyway.
Well, I have learned from my brief foray into this world that it is not worth my time. I am going to just work at my six-figure salaried job and give all my extra money to groups that disagree with you, Ms. unbelievable.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:04 pmThat's our unbelievable. Rudeness, insults and intolerance. But don't you dare defend yourself, or have an opinion or thought of your own, cuz you're gonna be wrong, wrong, wrong.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:09 pmWhen a woman who needed this procedure is denied it and dies, all five of these twisted immoral pieces of slime should be brought up on premeditated murder charges. Ditto the politicos who voted this law into existence, the president who signed it, and the propaganda pukes who pushed for it.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:11 pmMatthew.... i was listenening till your ego gave your mouth diahhrea!! we dont care if you have a six figure salaried job!! and if you were truly interested in helping you would give all of it not just the extra left after you fill up your Humvee!!!
April 18th, 2007 at 11:13 pm"I think I fairly called people ignorant who assume all Christians have the same beliefs."
Look, I was a Christian for 33 years. I know there are different flavors, but the general gist is that you do believe the same stuff. That's the whole point in subscribing to an established ideology. You're NOT thinking and defining for yourself. You're taking what a person named Jesus was quoted to say (and is written in the bible), and you're not supposed to question it. Why it is a faith...
So, generalizing about people who have a written book that they all use as a guide is not ignorant. No more than saying that, in general, nihilists believe there is not purpose in the universe. It's why they label themselves with that term - as an identifier for they generally believe...
You guys really aren't that much different, considering your belief system is based on the same book... which you're not allowed to question. If you do something else, then you aren't a Christian.
"We obviously do not. Perhaps it is an insult, but that is only one compared to the endless ones you have written. "
I'll repeat myself... You don't get to be an ass and then whine when treated like one. Yo want a different consequence? Then choose a different action next time.
"So just to educate you… I am from the Mennonite tradition, which has been based on peace and justice since formed in the sixteenth century."
Typical Christian patronization... See, I wasn't that wrong about you.
"The Christian tradition before that time was indeed violent, but again you keep heaping upon me guilt by association, even though I chose a denomination that has always disavowed violence.
Comment by Matthew — April 18, 2007 @ 10:48 pm"
You are guilty by association. Otherwise, do something about the violence in your religion - or call yourself a Mennonite and distance yourself from the 'average' Christians. After all, it's what Catholics do. They don't call themselves 'Christians' because they want to distance themselves from the biblical literalism of the Protestants... And because they believe that they are right...
April 18th, 2007 at 11:15 pm"You are definitely right about everything. I can’t believe I missed it all. Thank you for enlightening me. From now on I will start thinking and hope to some day as be as enlightened as you, so that I can talk down to anyone who disagrees with me and insult them continuously. Well-crafted!"
So, you have nothing then... You make this too easy to show thatthere is no thought behind your system... Don't get mad at me that you can't manipulate me to give you a pass just because you invoke Jesus...
"And to respond to your post #171, though it does not deserve the dignity of a response, I had already retracted what I said about belief versus thought because I had the semantics wrong and it wasn’t even my point anyway."
You have not one clue that your religion doesn't give you a pass to say anything, do you?
Reminds me why I left the church... Irrationality.
The reality is that you cannot respond to my posts with facts, and so now you're pitching a temper tantrum. Well, next time, perhaps you'll, before you show up and insult people who have the right to find your religious system appalling that you don't like when it's done to you.
I doubt it - you clearly think you have some higher right - but you don't. And I won't be intimidated.
Funny, how you claim to be against "violence", but you don't get how insults are a verbal form of it... LOL
"Well, I have learned from my brief foray into this world that it is not worth my time. I am going to just work at my six-figure salaried job and give all my extra money to groups that disagree with you, Ms. unbelievable.
Comment by Matthew — April 18, 2007 @ 11:04 pm"
Go right ahead. They don't spend it on what you think they should. They spend it on themselves. LOL...
No matter how much money you waste on your irrational causes, the facts show that religion is losing its steam. And it's because of people like you who claim to be one thing but act in complete opposition... LOL You're your own worst enemy...
April 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pm5 to 4 decision. 5 catholics. The pope now makes medical decisions.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:30 pmWe have a Krackers Kristian Kourt now.
Welcome to the oKKKupation.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:31 pm"That’s our unbelievable. Rudeness, insults and intolerance. But don’t you dare defend yourself, or have an opinion or thought of your own, cuz you’re gonna be wrong, wrong, wrong.
Comment by Thought Police — April 18, 2007 @ 11:09 pm"
I'm not YOUR anything. Never will be. I have zero respect for you because you you always demand what you aren't willing to give. Silly...
But, child who cannot post under your usual moniker, the facts are on my side. If you didn't know that, you wouldn't act like a juvenile brat when you don't get your own control-freak way. Live with it, because the more you insist on insulting me, the more I'll prove you cowardly... LOL
April 18th, 2007 at 11:31 pm#179 - Comment by unbelievable — April 18, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
unbelievable: I believe you have taken this thread off-track with your continuing opinions about Christians and Christianity.
Could you do us a favor and get us back on track?
April 18th, 2007 at 11:43 pm"unbelievable: I believe you have taken this thread off-track with your continuing opinions about Christians and Christianity."
There's that word 'believe'... LOL
"Could you do us a favor and get us back on track?
Comment by hterrya — April 18, 2007 @ 11:43 pm"
This issue IS about Christianity... Anti-abortion is wholly based on the Christian ideal that a fetus is equal to a person, and a woman has no right to govern her own womb.
Those of us who are tired of what religious tolerance has done to our country have every right to not only be anti-faith, but to say so where relevent. This is definitely one of those places.
And, if you'll notice, I wasn't the one who began that track, or commented on it, but by all means, single me out... I find it funny when people who demand tolerance aren't willing to give it.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:52 pm#186 - Comment by unbelievable — April 18, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Some of the dissenting votes were by Christians, I think you will find. That knocks your contention that "This issue IS about Christianity..." in a cocked hat.
So, if you won't get it back on track, I will.
The majority of the Supreme Court thought they could take their ideology and force it into their judicial rulings. I find your insisting that their ideology is somehow "Christian" to be totally off-track, and counterproductive to this discussion.
Their ideology is no more "Christian" than your ideology is.
It is time to get this discussion back on-track.
April 19th, 2007 at 12:04 amTheir ideology is no more “Christian†than your ideology is.
It is time to get this discussion back on-track.
Comment by hterrya — April 19, 2007 @ 12:04 am
You confuse theology with religion. While their actions might not be what you consider valid Christian theology, it does represent a huge part of the existing Christian religion...
April 19th, 2007 at 1:27 amSadly, posting #181 shows how little progress we have made in combating anti-Catholic bigotry in this country.
During the 1928 election, one Democratic campaign worker in North carolina estimated “the anti-Catholic literature dumped into her state alone must have cost at least a million dollars.†Pamphlets mailed to voters’ homes warned that a vote for Al Smith “means a vote for the Pope above the President, the Canon Law above the Constitution, and the Papal Rag above the American flag.â€
In 1960, Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike wrote a book titled “A Catholic In The White House,†in which he stated, “No voter should vote against any candidate simply on the ground of religion …. [The question becomes] complicated only in the case of a Roman Catholic candidate.†Pike asked “to what degree a Roman Catholic President would be subject to various ecclesiastical pressures, and the degree to which a Roman Catholic President would really be able to enter into occasions reflecting our pluralistic society.â€
Election analysts have estimated that Kennedy’s Catholicism cost him nearly five million votes. See Paul F. Boller, “Presidential campaigns†(New York, NY, 1984)
April 19th, 2007 at 2:22 amLook at what conservatives have done to this country. They only care about money at any cost. They truly don't vare about the babbies they just use them to score political points just like they use the soldiers. They believe in everymans right to carry assault rifles like m-16s and whatever else. The Reagan era rethuglicans are the worst thing that happened to this country. While they try to crucify modern day democrats over what some pot smoking hippies did 35-40 years ago really sit back and see and seriously ask yourself what they have done for this country with their presidential power. Ask yourself how they truly have helped this country inthe past 30 years. Not just their rich friends and themselves but the country as a WHOLE. I think you will be very dissapointed. They claim morale authority yet theycare nothing about the poor, homeless, uninsured but they split our country over gays and guns and god whom they claim to know more than Democrats. This will alll come back to bite them in the long run. You can't ignore the poor forever because one day no matter how rich you are they will eventually end up on your doorstep.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:46 am#187 - Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — April 19, 2007 @ 1:27 am
I stand by my statement, that the ideology of the majority on the Supreme Court is no more "Christian" than the ideology that "unbelievable" expouses.
I said nothing about theology or religion. That is because it is clearly a matter of ideology not Christianity, theology, or religion. Even though some (or all) in the majority on the Supreme Court claim to be "Christians" their "claim" simply serves as a cover to keep us from seeing their real ideology, which has nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus. It has to do with power and dominance.
If someone falls for their "Christian" claim, they have done a "bait and switch;" the person has fallen for it; and they can tell their base that that person (usually tagged with term "liberal") hates Christians. They win.
Let's get back to talking about how we can counteract their ideology of power and dominance.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:36 amComment #173 by unbelievable — April 18, 2007 @ 11:01 pm.
"I’m with Charles Dawkins when he says that religion gets no special passes on criticism."
Unbelievable, do you mean Richard Dawkins? Although I totally understand why you'd mix up his name with Charles Darwin's :-)
I don't like abortion (I am female and not religious, FWIW) but my position is that it is necessary in a civilized society. It is the right of the woman to choose, and obviously the earlier along in the pregnancy she is the better.
Better still would be to implement a decent sex-education/sexual health program for young people and provide them with good access to safe contraception. Teaching abstinence only simply doesn't work. The Netherlands, which educates it's young people very well in these matters, has the lowest rate of abortion per capita of population in the world. (I have a link to the survey, somewhere - I'll post it later if I can find it).
I would be very surprised if there were women aborting at a late stage in pregnancy who didn't have a very good reason for doing so. It must be heartbreaking. A law that bans the right of a doctor to save a woman's life is, to me, a step backward.
This is my first post, although I've been a long-time reader of TP - hi everyone!
Regards,
CovalentBonder
April 19th, 2007 at 9:13 amThe true meaning of this ruling is that flacid legislators should be legislating, and not praying for courts to make the tough calls for them.
I point to the New Jersey legislature's hard work in fashioning a civil union law to allow homosexuals to "marry". It was the right approach for them (and the country), so people just need to learn to compromise.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:16 amHere's a link to the info on abortion rates (apologies - Germany has a slightly lower abortion rate than the Netherlands).
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsest.htm
Regards,
CovalentBonder
April 19th, 2007 at 9:30 am#190 - CovalentBonder
Great comment, and welcome!
April 19th, 2007 at 9:35 amI think the underlying issue regarding abortion is all about control of women. Since Roe v Wade was passed, women have had more control of their lives and I think this drives the right mad. For those totally outraged about yesterday's decision, contact the idiots who confirmed the majority. Here's a link showing the confirmation votes of all supreme court nominees:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm
Theresa
April 19th, 2007 at 9:39 am# 193 - Zooey
Why, thank you, Ms. Zooey :-)
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 amThe language of the ruling, as Justice Ginsberg pointed out in her dissent, is the language of the religious zealots who wage war on women's reproductive rights. The fundamentalist Christians and those of some other sects have framed the conversation using inaccurate pejoratives (abortion doctor, partial-birth abortion, referring to a fetus as a baby or child...).
So, yes, this ruling is indeed about "Christianity", despite the Christians Supremes who dissented. It is about the effort of that element of our society which is attempting to assert control over our rights and freedoms. It is about these regressive religions and their attitudes about women.
Real women now will suffer and die, because this necessary procedure is denied. To think that this operation is just a matter of "convenience" (as the majority opinion states!) to any physician or pregnant woman shows utter contempt for women.
Shameful! Now we must work to get the law off the books...that takes electing intelligent, progressive candidates, who will also not allow anymore religiously-activist judges to be elevated to the Supreme Court.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:30 am#196 - Comment by Emerald — April 19, 2007 @ 10:30 am
"The language of the ruling, as Justice Ginsberg pointed out in her dissent, is the language of the religious zealots..."
I read Justice Ginsberg's dissent in its entirety. Nowhere in that dissent, especially in the section where she refers to the choice of language of the majority, does she refer to "religious zealots" or "Christians" for that matter.
Emerald, you seem to insist on talking about your ideology, rather than the ideology of the majority in this case, that ideology having to do with power and dominance, not religious zealotry. The ideology of the majority on the Court is disturbing and, as Justice Ginsberg points out, is threatening to the health of women. Your ideology does nothing to help in combating the ideology of the Supreme Court majority in this case. In fact it clouds the issue.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:26 amI think this all boils down to the simple fact that it just isn't a party for feminists unless a baby's skull is punctured by a pair of scissors, its brain scrambled / mushed, its cranium collapsed and finally yanked from the uteris. What better right of initiation for a feminist?
April 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pm#203 - Comment by Jason M. Hendler — April 19, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
"...it just isn’t a party for feminists unless a baby’s skull is punctured by a pair of scissors, its brain scrambled / mushed, its cranium collapsed and finally yanked from the uteris. "
Trying to inflame the discussion in order to distract and detract from the issue AGAIN, Mr. Hendler?
The ideology-driven decision by the majority of the Supreme Court, which also used words to conceal their true intention - undergirding judicially the NeoCons' quest for power and dominance, is the issue.
The majority's total disregard for the health of the woman against long-established Supreme Court precedents, as pointed out by Justice Gingsberg's dissent, reveals the power and dominance that the majority seeks is over women.
Your use of the word "feminist" in a maliciously derogatory manner has unmasked you as still another inadequate male hoping to achieve power and dominance over women. You'll never achieve it. You lack the intellectual (and physical) equipment.
April 19th, 2007 at 3:39 pm"Some of the dissenting votes were by Christians, I think you will find. That knocks your contention that “This issue IS about Christianity…†in a cocked hat."
Not at all. It IS about Christianity. It's where the issue stems from - even if there are other Christians who disagree with it. Just because some Christians disagree doesn't mean it's not a Christian issue. That's illogical.
"So, if you won’t get it back on track, I will."
How noble of you... Like you can control what people post. More typical Christian holier-than-thouness...
"The majority of the Supreme Court thought they could take their ideology and force it into their judicial rulings. I find your insisting that their ideology is somehow “Christian†to be totally off-track, and counterproductive to this discussion."
I see you didn't get very far in getting back on track. LOL. Your hypocrites are really not very original. It's your place to scold me for doing something you don't like, but then there you go and do it yourself...
I couldn't care less what you 'find'. It's not YOUR blog.
The issue is a Christian issue and to say otherwise shows an inability to face reality. Go ask the anti-abortion people what their religion is. I would be surprised if any of them were Atheists.
'Their ideology is no more “Christian†than your ideology is."
Duh... I'm an Atheist and never claimed to have based my views on Christianity.
"It is time to get this discussion back on-track.
Comment by hterrya — April 19, 2007 @ 12:04 am"
Good luck with that... LOL
April 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pm"Sadly, posting #181 shows how little progress we have made in combating anti-Catholic bigotry in this country.
Comment by Exley — April 19, 2007 @ 2:22 am"
Boo-freaking-hoo Exley. Your guys tortured innocent people (Inquisition, Crusades, Salem Witch Trials) and you expect what? Tolerance? I call enough.
You people don't get a free pass from criticism and accountability just because you invoke Jesus. Enough already. If you don't like that I can very easily poke holes in your irration belief system, then don't go waving in my face, or trying to force it upon my uterus.
Seriously, I've had enough of you zealots and I'm not alone.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:28 pm"Unbelievable, do you mean Richard Dawkins? Although I totally understand why you’d mix up his name with Charles Darwin’s :-)"
Ooops... I did. I sometimes say Richard Darwin on accident too...
"I don’t like abortion (I am female and not religious, FWIW) but my position is that it is necessary in a civilized society. It is the right of the woman to choose, and obviously the earlier along in the pregnancy she is the better. "
I think that is essentially what those of us here are espousing as well. We aren't pro-abortion, but this law crosses the line of violating our privacy. The Rude Pundit linked to a slate.com article on the majority opinion. The synopsis was horrific because it is clearly the religious rights' foot in the door toward banning all forms of abortion.
"Better still would be to implement a decent sex-education/sexual health program for young people and provide them with good access to safe contraception."
As a high school teacher, who understand the mind of my students, I fully agree.
"Teaching abstinence only simply doesn’t work."
I saw an article on this just yesterday that validates this is true. That you can't stop teenagers with their raging hormones from having sex, so starting a program out with a bad premise just ends in a bad program.
"The Netherlands, which educates it’s young people very well in these matters, has the lowest rate of abortion per capita of population in the world. (I have a link to the survey, somewhere - I’ll post it later if I can find it)."
I'd love the link... I had done some research myself after reading a Scientific America article on the infant mortality rate in countries with Equal Rights Laws for women in place. There's a very high correlation between the Northern European countries , and Canada that have respect for a woman's right to choose and low abortion rates, crime rates, unemployment rates, disease rates, murder rates, and so on. There's a very clear distinction between these countries, who are also not religious whatsoever, and unwanted pregnancies. But the good ol' boys here in the US don't want to give up their patriarchy...
"I would be very surprised if there were women aborting at a late stage in pregnancy who didn’t have a very good reason for doing so. It must be heartbreaking. A law that bans the right of a doctor to save a woman’s life is, to me, a step backward."
All the educated, thinking women I know agree with you. Several even know women who've been at this juncture, and it was horrible enough without the "Moral Majority" pouring salt in their wounds.
If you don't trust women to choose for themselves, then why in teh world would you trust them with a baby?
"This is my first post, although I’ve been a long-time reader of TP - hi everyone!
Regards,
CovalentBonder
Comment by Covalentbonder — April 19, 2007 @ 9:13 am"
Welcome to TP! Nice to meet you.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:41 pmCB - excellent link! I added it to my favorites and will be emailing it to friends, in light of the studies that show that Abstinence Only programs do not work...
April 19th, 2007 at 5:45 pm"Shameful! Now we must work to get the law off the books…that takes electing intelligent, progressive candidates, who will also not allow anymore religiously-activist judges to be elevated to the Supreme Court.
Comment by Emerald — April 19, 2007 @ 10:30 am"
I can only hope that the damage done by these people will be a stark reminder to all people of the inherent dangers in allowing governments tobe controlled by those who adhere to patriarchial belief systems
April 19th, 2007 at 5:56 pm"What better right of initiation for a feminist?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — April 19, 2007 @ 2:49 pm"
You could get a female therapist to pay you attention so that you can stop bothering us...
April 19th, 2007 at 6:01 pm#204, hterrya,
Nope, no desire to control anyone, but I will stand my ground against feminists who intend to intimidate by hurling threats of accusing people of male dominance and sexism.
Moreover, feminists unabashedly using their victim status to justify killing the weakest in our society - the unborn - isn't going to fly with me, and I will call you on your hypocracy all day. I am surprised that feminists don't justify slavery using their victim status - it is the next logical step for them. Women have been downtrodden so long, that they are owed slaves, n'est pas?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pm"Supreme Court Rhetoric Reveals Deep ‘Hostility’ To Women’s Rights"
So what! I find the Left's complicity to kill nearly term babies barbaric - but your PC-ness will be noted by the people who "matter" on the Left.
No, Amanda, The Supreme Courts "rhetoric' reveals deep hostility to a most indecent act of legalized infaticide. FYI - You might be surprised to learn a Caesarean section is MUCH quicker if the life of the mother or baby is jeopardized. This infanticide - pure and simple - is opposed by decent people on both sides of the political aisle.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:00 pmUnbelievable,
"Salem Witch Trials?" Wow....That had absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism. Your ignorance of history is surpassed only by your religious bigotry. Your anti-Catholicism is sickening.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:24 pmUnbelievable, you are off-track and insanely hateful of anyone who disagrees with you about your power and dominance atheism. You remind me of Exley and Jason M. Hendler. I leave this ancient thread to you and your power and dominence comrades. You deserve each other.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:55 pmI was amazed that major "journalists" who reported this story fell hook line and sinker into the liberal miasma of "this will will open the door of women's rights appeals" and never had the GUTS to describe the "procedure". Such phonies....
April 19th, 2007 at 11:31 pm#215, Actually, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press did describe the outlawed procedure:
"The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJ5JLG1&show_article=1
April 19th, 2007 at 11:54 pmIf Christianity is to be barred as a reason for arguing against something, who exactly does that exclude from public debate? It excludes far more of the poor than the rich. If there is a deep issue that is very fundamental, how will typical individuals without a broad liberal arts education describe their opinions? They arent going to go on about Kant's categorical imperative or Rawls' 'veil of ignorance'. They are going to put it in terms of the deepest thing that they deal with in their regular lives. For the poor and middle class more often than the rich, this is some sort of religious service.
Actual biblical injunctions against abortion are indirect at best, and there are organizations that involve religious Christians that argue the opposite, http://www.rcrc.org/ for example.
Likewise, there are athiests who are pro-life. As the direct biblical references to abortion are thin, there are plenty of reasons totally outside the Christian religion to support abortion restrictions. A web page resource for anti-abortion athiests appears here: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/
The abortion debate is not about religion. The religious aspects of it are reflections of the cultural differences between the two sides. These differences are driven by life circumstance. Those of lower income have a better understanding of power.
Abortion is about power - but not in the way we've been taught to envision. Consider this - when a person is given a 'choice', what could be the outside influences on that person? If there is someone more powerful who stands to gain from the person choosing A over B, and the more powerful person can affect the chooser's circumstances in life, can the chooser realistically select choice B? The person will have to select choice A - this is not a choice at all. This is what happens for example when someone 'chooses' to accept an extremely low wage job for example, or one with poor working conditions.
Naturally, those who are more likely to relate to the powerful person in this scenario will want to allow the so-called 'choice'. They will inevitably drive home the notion that it is a 'choice', and describe their position as pro-freedom and pro-rights. Allowing exploitive workplace practices was often called the 'right to work'.
If a woman is 'choosing' between an abortion or childbirth, what is she to do when faced with an employer who may be unsympathetic to any workplace flexibility, a boyfriend who doesn't want the responsibility, or parents who will not accept the situation. Society is likely to have structured her life such that any of those individuals are more powerful than her. Thus she obtains the abortion. This was not a choice.
In other situations in which such a 'choice' is made in the midst of such power dynamics, the conclusion is usually not to celebrate such a choice as a right. We already went through situations like this, even involving Supreme Court decisions. Roughly a century ago, a decision named Lochner v New York overturned a labor law that prohibited undue working hours in a bakery. It is often compared to Roe because it used similar legal reasoning. The decision and ones like it are now considered some of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history.
We don't celebrate the 'right' of someone to be exploited, the 'right' to prostitution, or the 'right' to sweatshop labor. The left usually understands this on other issues. In other cases, the response is to prohibit the so called 'choice' because it's understood to be a sham. I highly doubt that there are massive numbers of women who obtain abortions who look forward to the experience.
So where does this leave us? We have a two party system in the US. As it turns out, both parties need to have some wealthy individuals on their side if they are going to win elections - that's simply reality. Those who support the poor on clearly economic issues (the left) would be dead-in-the-water politically if they abandoned the support of the wealthier cultural classes who most strongly support abortion legalization.
What about the right? are they going to argue that abortion should be restricted because it isn't a choice in the first place? They clearly can't, such a stance would make their own wealthy donors fear the broader implications. So who do the wealthy conservative donors accept? The ones that aren't going to confront them about power dynamics, but those who try arguing with some sort of religions perspective.
Thus we're left with a nonsensical smokescreen on the right that says this is about religion when it isn't, and people on the left who argure that women need the 'right' to surgery in order to please people they have to deal with.
There is a "reproductive right to work" that is going strong. The fact that neither the left nor the right has the wherewhithal to combat it is very sad.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:16 amThank you, Exley! It seems my local paper, which utilizes the NYT and Associated Press frequently, did more cutting than pasting.
April 20th, 2007 at 1:48 amI remember when all abortions were banned in Nicaragua. There was a girl with a wanted pregnancy who suddendly had severe complications and needed an abortion to save her life, but since the politicans decided that she couldnt have one, she died. This is what will happen as a result of this law. I can see the writing on the wall that women are gonna die in our own country because they couldnt get an abortion to save their life. I cannot find words to describe how I feel about this regime (words sound familiar) just like in animal farm bush (purposley mis-capitalized) and his fellow republican evildoers (sounds familiar again) have become what he claimed his enemy was, a cold harded tyrant who is blind to the justice of his own people, in this case women in there darkest hours.
April 20th, 2007 at 8:19 pma cold harded tyrant who is blind to the justice of his own people,
Like a woman murdering her fetal child? Murderous wretches who simply wish to kill their children because its the easy way out (98% of abortions) don't deserve much sympathy. If they are uncivil enough to then go out and get one anyway even when the government is civil enough to outlaw it and they injure or kill themselves in the process then they are only getting what they deserve. I'm sorry if this sounds unsympathetic, but if you are going to murder someone that helpless and you kill yourself in the process that's only poetic justice.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:16 pmNatalia Vodianova Calvin Klein
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 17th, 2008 at 4:37 amJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 8:04 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 2:52 amInsurance Automobile Insurance Home Owners Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:25 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 2:23 amLaw And Order Adult Baby
Thanks for creating this blog. I thought it was a very interesting read. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:30 amYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pmYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 10:23 pmPreteen Preteen Pussy Model Pre Teen Underwear
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 10:49 pmEric
Your site looks great! I have seen many other so-called sites and they have been far from good quality.Your site has all the key ingredients to pulling in visitors.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:05 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm