03 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoKinda reminds me of people who cheat to get "even" when their spouse cheats on them. Although it is counterproductive and nonsensical, at the time is sure feels "good".
yes, in order to avenge his death we should kill some more babies.
nice.
03 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by ScriabinCorrect me if I'm wrong (I'm too lazy to look at the case right now). Isn't that quote limited to pre-viability?
Under Casey an abortion law is unconstitutional on its face if, "in a large fraction of the cases in which [the law] is relevant, it will operate as a substantial obstacle to a woman's choice to undergo an abortion." 112 S. Ct. at 2830.
Also, the "substantial obstacle" is key. Casey allowed things like "informed consent" requirements and reasonable waiting periods. Under your standard, should all those things also be unconstitutional?
04 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinThe pro-life position is based on the idea that all fetuses are fully human from the moment of conception - in which case, we're allowing a million or so human beings to be murdered every year in the US. If someone believes this, it would be immoral and irresponsible if they did NOT take the "fundamentalist Christian position".
been contributing member of PP for 35 yrs
also contribute to NARAL, though my wife is PO'd at them for abandoning Hilary.
she's been an officer of the state National Organization for Women for many years.
government should butt out of the issue -- there is no compelling state interest involved; all laws limiting this medical procedure violate substanti ...[text shortened]... tion, on the matter is beyond irresponsible -- it is immoral and, in my view, unconstitutional
The problem with pro-lifers is that they assume that everyone agrees with their definition that "human" life begins at conception (and the pro-choicers have a similar problem on the other end of the question).
If the pro-life side has any hope of changing the laws, they need to focus a lot more on convincing people that all fetuses are fully human -- and people are usually NOT convinced by angry confrontational rhetoric and violent activities. And they need to assume that Roe v Wade isn't going to change any time soon - I suspect even a conservative court would avoid making a substantial ruling.
Perhaps pro-lifers could unite with certain pro-choicers and begin a "choose life" campaign to urge all pregnant women to make the choice to have the baby - and for all women (and their partners) to make the choice to avoid unwanted pregnancies. I've seen countless anti-tobacco ads over the past few years - but I've seen almost NO ads promoting motherhood, adoption, chastity, and responsibility. And this campaign could focus on helping the many women who lack financial, medical, and social resources to help them manage their pregnancies and raise their children.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimoGood point there. The Beyser foundation is now accepting donations from those in disgust with the good doctors murder. To be fair the foundation is also accepting money from those that dislike abortions. I will promise the money will not be used for killing doctors or babies.
yes, in order to avenge his death we should kill some more babies.
nice.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76under my standard, yes
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm too lazy to look at the case right now). Isn't that quote limited to pre-viability?
Also, the "substantial obstacle" is key. Casey allowed things like "informed consent" requirements and reasonable waiting periods. Under your standard, should all those things also be unconstitutional?
I am opposed to any governmental interference in this decision
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by Melanerpesyou miss the point as so many people do
The pro-life position is based on the idea that all fetuses are fully human from the moment of conception - in which case, we're allowing a million or so human beings to be murdered every year in the US. If someone believes this, it would be immoral and irresponsible if they did NOT take the "fundamentalist Christian position".
The problem with pro-lif ...[text shortened]... , and social resources to help them manage their pregnancies and raise their children.
the question of what the fetus is and when is quite irrelevant in my view
the only question is whether the government has a compelling interest to interfere in a woman's right to choose medical care for her own body.
all this consideration of morality and responsibility presupposes something rather important that I am not willing to let pass as an a priori proposition, which is that just because other people, even the majority of people, think something is immoral does not confer on government the right to legislate limits about it.
that's not enough -- especially if there is no scientific, medical unanimity on the question, so it is not a matter of fact, but rather a matter of judgment which necessarily encroaches upon a woman's freedom and liberty to choose what is best for her own body.
in other words, it ain't your business, it ain't my business -- government has no business in this decision.
I don't care what anyone else thinks, feels, or believes about it from a moral ethical or religious standpoint -- they can all sit on it.
you either support this view or you allow theocracy -- it is much more than merely the camel's nose.
05 Jun 09
Do Pro-Life Groups and all other anti-abortion-fundamental Christians end their support of the right to life once the child is born?
Do they decry the abortion rate and encourage women to have children, and at the same time argue against welfare and support of the underprivileged?
If so then these so called *Christians* are nothing more than a fund of mentals.
05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinI think this very reality, that the vast numbers of women who take the pill are only vaguely aware, that the hormones released by the pill make it impossible for the foetus to attach to the uterine wall, which means that in any given month for a sexually active women, she may be unknowingly aborting a viable foetus, is the blurring agent the makes the demarcating line between abortion and prevention all but dissapear.
The most common forms of what we generically in common parlance call contraception today, IUDs, low dose birth control pills which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. It is impossible to distinguish between abortion and contraception when you define abortion as the destruction of the first joinder of the ovum and the sperm.
If the pro-lifers would engage in a holy crusade against all abortionists, then they should also take on the CEO's of pharmaceutical companies. Also their own** wives probably.
** The anti-abortionists wives that is.