Bush nominates Alito to SCOTUS

[Yonivore]

Okay, I've got to say it...why are you kissing K. D. Lang in your Avatar?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, all I have to say on the abortion issue is that if Roe is overturned, the Democrats will have their agenda set for years to come and probably will make gains in which their current disorganized state they cannot.

How much hay will be made out of Alito's going back on his word to recuse himself from any cases involving a company in which he had roughly half a million dollars invested?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103101686.html

[Yonivore]

Well, all I have to say on the abortion issue is that if Roe is overturned, the Democrats will have their agenda set for years to come and probably will make gains in which their current disorganized state they cannot.

That would depend on if you're talking about Jimmy Carter Democrats or Michael Moore Democrats. Because, there's a whole buttload of one (those that also opppose abortion) who could probably care less about Roe v. Wade and, in fact, may like to see it overturned; and very few of the other (those that promote abortion). Bottom line, Abortion is becoming a marginalized Democrat issue with no mainstream support and little extreme (albeit loud) support.

How much hay will be made out of Alito's going back on his word to recuse himself from any cases involving a company in which he had roughly half a million dollars invested?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...103101686.html

Not much, I imagine.

[JoeChalupa]

No ... I actually don't like abortion, it makes me very sad and disheartend. But I've been a single mom for a very long time under the worst cir stances and I know it's not all peaches and cream and takes a very strong cons ution and a good support system to be able to handle it. Not everyone has that. And it's not like getting stuck with a bad haircut or color that will grow out eventually, it's yours until the day you die. And I don't mean using it as a form of birth control to a certain extent ... ask any woman who has been in that situation and I guarantee you rarely you will find one that took her situation that lightly. I just feel very strongly that the decision should be between the affected person/people in their unique situation. They are the only ones that have to live with what the consequences of their choice may be. And I don't know anyone having had one who has "forgotten all about it."

Having had 2 (live, healthy children) of my own, and known several very loving people who were not able to have kids of their own, I hold young woman who are able to give their children up for adoption right up there with people who work in ICU's ... which is somewhere near Saint territory.

I'm actually with Spurminator for the most part on this one ... prevention is worth a ton of cure. Education is everything. If unwanted pregnancies were prevented in the first place...this wouldn't be as huge an issue and everyone could just mind their own business and live their own lives.

For example, I wonder how many women (and men) know that a woman can get pregnant from having intercourse during her period? That that is by no means a "safe" time? Or the innumerable amount of pregnancies that spontaneously abort during the first 4 weeks that a woman didn't even know about...that mistook a miscarriage for a normal cycle? The "did you knows?" are limit-less.

[ChumpDumper]

Bottom line, Abortion is becoming a marginalized Democrat issue with no mainstream support and little extreme (albeit loud) support.

It's marginalized now because nothing much is ever really done about it. Little window-dressing parental consent or late-term regualtions aren't much for either side to give much of a about. Overturn Roe and you'll defintely de-marginalize the issue and change many votes in the process.

[Yonivore]

...it makes me very sad and disheartend.

Why is that?

ask any woman who has been in that situation and I guarantee you rarely you will find one that took her situation that lightly.

And, why is that?

They are the only ones that have to live with what the consequences of their choice may be.

And, just what are the consequences if it's just tissue, like a wart or mole or benign cyst?

And I don't know anyone having had one who has "forgotten all about it."

And, why is that?

For example, I wonder how many women (and men) know that a woman can get pregnant from having intercourse during her period? That that is by no means a "safe" time? Or the innumerable amount of pregnancies that spontaneously abort during the first 4 weeks that a woman didn't even know about...that mistook a miscarriage for a normal cycle? The "did you knows?" are limit-less.

What do I win? I know all these things.

I also know abstinence has never resulted in pregnancy. Well, there was that one immaculate conception.

[Yonivore]

It's marginalized now because nothing much is ever really done about it. Little window-dressing parental consent or late-term regualtions aren't much for either side to give much of a about. Overturn Roe and you'll defintely de-marginalize the issue and change many votes in the process.

I'm willing to take that chance...

[ChumpDumper]

Invest in coathangers.

[scott]

So now people care what Jimmy Carter thinks?

[Dos]

seems like it's none issue .. roe v wade I don't believe will ever be overturned.. it's like the right crying about gun rights... sheeesh

[JoeChalupa]

seems like it's none issue .. roe v wade I don't believe will ever be overturned.. it's like the right crying about gun rights... sheeesh

I concur.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd believe that if the litmus tests didn't exist on both sides.

[jochhejaam]

Why is that?

And, why is that?

And, just what are the consequences if it's just tissue, like a wart or mole or benign cyst?

And, why is that?

Good questioning, cuts right to the heart of the serious problem posed by abortion.

If I were her attorney I'd advise her to take the Fifth on this one.

[SpursWoman]

What do I win? I know all these things.

For every one of you there's five little Alverez's of the forum that makes their 15 year old girlfriends take a pill before they have sex. A Pill? I didn't realize there was "A" pill you could take for birth control. Usually it's a pill EVERYDAY. It's scary. I know WOMEN who think you can't get pregnant during her period. Very scary indeed. Congratulations to you though, for being smarter than the average teenagers who don't have parents that teach them...because they will never get the whole story from their buddies at school.

I also know abstinence has never resulted in pregnancy. Well, there was that one immaculate conception.

Well, in the real world, in 2005, people are getting laid just for fun. Go figure.

[Yonivore]

Well, in the real world, in 2005, people are getting laid just for fun. Go figure.

And that has consequences. Go figure.

No reason a baby should suffer them just because of the irresponsibility of the fun-seeker.

[jochhejaam]

seems like it's non issue .. roe v wade I don't believe will ever be overturned.. it's like the right crying about gun rights... sheeesh

sheesh interj.
Used to express mild annoyance, surprise, or disgust


Sheesh? I think 55,000,000 babies being denied the right to exist each year, with well over 2,000,000 million being denied that most basic of human rights here in the United States, deserves more than a sheesh.

Is your philosophy one of 'if I see little hope of correcting a gross injustice it becomes a non-issue so I'll just forget about it and look the other way'?

Fortunately there is a vast mul ude of people that don't share that philosophy.

The hottest places in are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
-Dante Alighieri- The Inferno

[FromWayDowntown]

Where did that come from? I'm quite certain that you can't back up that charge with anything resembling fact. Show me the money (facts)!
I can only surmise that you feel that way because of the strength of the arguements by those that are against abortion.

Your entire argument is premised on the notion that everyone either does or should believe in your God. You posit that a baby is a gift from God (as opposed, I guess, to the result of certain biological processes in the human body) -- that is, created by God. But if someone doesn't believe in God, they don't agree with you on that. The point/counterpoint on this "morality play" is that while you see abortion as an abomination, some (particularly those who aren't religious) do not.

Again, why is it that your view is superior?

[SpursWoman]

And that has consequences. Go figure.

No reason a baby should suffer them just because of the irresponsibility of the fun-seeker.

Educate the people and there wouldn't be near as many unwanted "consequences."

Now The Greatest Gift From God is reduced to "consequence" status?

Why do you appear to be so against putting more effort into educating young people about how babies are made than trying to prevent the problem in the first place? A pre-emptive strike, so to speak. You realize that there are a load of parents out there that either don't care or are too embarrassed to teach their kids anything, right?

Simply throwing a bible at them and telling them "Don't Do It Because I Said So" isn't good enough.

[jochhejaam]

Your entire argument is premised on the notion that everyone either does or should believe in your God. You posit that a baby is a gift from God (as opposed, I guess, to the result of certain biological processes in the human body) -- that is, created by God. But if someone doesn't believe in God, they don't agree with you on that. The point/counterpoint on this "morality play" is that while you see abortion as an abomination, some (particularly those who aren't religious) do not.

Again, why is it that your view is superior?

You misunderstand my premise because a baby's creative origin is irrevelant in regards to the value of his or her life.

My entire arguement is based upon the premise that human life has great value, my belief that this is God's creation interjects possible eternal ramifications for those that believe a baby's beating heart is of less value than a woman's prerogitave.

[SpursWoman]

Your entire argument is based on what you learned in Bible school, apparently. Not everyone has been or cares to go. So what about them? Or are you just *talking* to hear yourself *talk*?

Don't get me wrong...there's nothing wrong with that at all if that's what you choose to do. But you can't assume everyone lives with that belief system. Enacting laws based on theological beliefs will start touching ground on infringing on the freedom of religion of others.

In order to make a point that will be cause for consideration to those that don't, you're going to have to get a little more specific & scientific....and not use word's like "eternal" and "God's whatever" ... a lot of people really don't give a damn, and as soon as you start preaching they are going to tune you right out.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

Your entire argument is based on what you learned in Bible school, apparently. Not everyone has been or cares to go. So what about them? Or are you just *talking* to hear yourself *talk*? Don't get me wrong...there's nothing wrong with that at all if that's what you choose to do.

^^^Strawman arguement #1 a blatant attempt to draw attention away from your position which is one that shows total disregard for the sanc y of human life.
I've never been to Bible School and never stated that I had but a baby's heart starts beating at 18 days even if I had attended one.
As I just clearly stated in reply to FWD, the fact that human life is sacred does not hinge on divine creation a point you chose to ignore in order to justify an arguement which was made made obsolete by that point.

But you can't assume everyone lives with that belief system. Enacting laws based on theological beliefs will start touching ground on infringing on the freedom of religion of others.

^^^Strawman arguement #2 Without theology human life is less valuable than a woman's social issues?
Time and again you insert false assumptions and frivilous hypebole into your arguements.
I'm acutely aware of the fact that there are many belief/nonbelief systems and therefore are differing views on issues and I've never assumed or insinuated anything different than that. [/B]

In order to make a point that will be cause for consideration to those that don't, you're going to have to get a little more specific & scientific....and not use word's like "eternal" and "God's whatever" ... a lot of people really don't give a damn, and as soon as you start preaching they are going to tune you right out.

Strawman arguement #3 ^^^ I have been specific and that is readily evident to anyone that has followed this thread. You seem to think that someone's belief in God lessens the strength of their arguement. Do you believe in God? Most people on either side of the abortion debate do.
\
Of my 25 or so posts many are supported by scientific fact, only 4 or 5 had any mention of God and the fact that he's mentioned certainly doesn't weaken the merit of the arguement.
You're seeing shadows where there are none.

I'm will give you credit for one thing in this thread Spurswoman as the leading the way in sidestepping the main issue and as the top submitter of strawman arguements.

[FromWayDowntown]

You misunderstand my premise because a baby's creative origin is irrevelant in regards to the value of his or her life.

My entire arguement is based upon the premise that human life has great value, my belief that this is God's creation interjects possible eternal ramifications for those that believe a baby's beating heart is of less value than a woman's prerogitave.

But the issue here, it seems to me, is when life begins and at what point you subjugate the rights of a woman who happens to become pregnant to the possibility that she might eventually bear a child.

Your argument begins and ends with a presumption that life begins at conception (or very shortly thereafter). If you can say that life begins at conception, then you can justify a position that the woman's rights are limited by a pregnancy -- that a fetus has rights that are equal to the woman's.

You have to admit, joch, that to a very large degree, that premise about life is based less on scientific fact and more on faith.

Hence, your argument, I think, depends largely on your faith, regardless of how you might try here to back away from that truth.

[SpursWoman]

I'm will give you credit for one thing in this thread Spurswoman as the leading the way in sidestepping the main issue and as the top submitter of strawman arguements

The remark about Bible school = being facetious. I didn't realize I needed to point that out.

I'm not side-stepping anything. Your absolute, entire argument is based on faith or emotions, which is 100% subjective. There are a lot of variables involved in defining a pregnancy than when *life* begins...and if my inclination to bring those up also bothers you then too damn bad....SCROLL. You are trying to make something black & white and it's not.

Except for the 18 days and the heart-beating part, the rest of your argument wouldn't mean crap to someone who doesn't believe in God.

My observation: it's awfully easy for someone to sit back and judge and make decisions about a situation that even by act of GOD will never, ever happen to them. I don't need anyone making my life choices for me, thanks.

Question for Yonivore & Joch: if life begins at conception, please tell me exactly when that occurs, and how you determine that fact. Thanks.

[scott]

A shocker of a thread this is.

[smeagol]

I don't need anyone making my life choices for me, thanks.

One could argue that when you carry another life in your woom, it's no longer your own life you are making a choice on.