We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, December 4. 2007
A Happy Hannukah to our Jewish readers. (FYI: How to spell Hannukah and other info re this holiday)
I don't know why he included the bit about tomato sauce, but his list of Thanksgiving myths is good.
If abortion is murder, who should be punished - and how? Reisman
I do not want to vote for people with charisma. Asst. Village Idiot
Another reason American medical care is expensive: too many CAT scans. But why? Dr. Bob. The next time your Doc suggests a test, ask him or her whether it's a pure CYA for the malpractice lawyers, or truly necessary. They will tell you. You can refuse to do it.
Time for a PC re-write of God Save the Queen. Of course. One must distort your precious and time-honored culture the immigrants want come to, to...please them? Wha? If they don't want to join the culture, why do they come? Just for the money? If so, and they don't want to get on board with the culture, then the hell with them.
Offending people is bad manners, but Free Speech. Betsy. Offend at will, if you wish.
So much for Iraq as a big campaign issue. We told ya so, last winter. Nobody was asleep at the switch in the White House.
How the Brit Nanny State thinks (and lies) to their "children" adult citizens, from Devil's Advocate:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I have always been interested in the colors we use to celebrate. I know why we Christians use a clear Red/Medium Green, but I do not know where the tradition of using that lovely turquoise/aqua blue for Hanukkah came from. Any ideas?
ap, I fwd'd the post to Mika of Haifa, who knows of these things--he'll probably respond in the comments, if he has the answer--
is the link Mika sent back. he also said look into the word "tchelet" (Hebrew for the light blue--presumably the blue in the Israeli flag).
Hi, Buddy. I don't know much about Jewish traditions, as I don't follow any of them. :)
From my limited knowledge, the word you want to google for is 'tchelet', which is Hebrew for the color light blue. Here's a good article I found that deals with the ancients' color palette.
Best regards, and a festive holiday season to all.
i.e. Happy Festivus! :)
Happy Hannukah, mika --(however you spell it, have a happy 'un)!
The abortion article makes me sick. To answer the question with a little of the TV learned legalease the author relies on: there is no statute of limitations on murder, therefore all the doctors and all the women on record as having murdered their babies will all have to be tried for murder. I personally would suspend the trials in light of the overwhelming evidence and commence with the capital punishment.
The author states:
"In reality, when, for example, a fetus must still be measured in mere tenths of an inch, it is simply not a human being. At that point, it is nothing more than a growth in a woman’s womb that has the potential to become a human being."
WRONG. Death is defined as the lack of heartbeat or brain waves, so surely the opposite is LIFE, eh?
His logic could apply to 10 year old children, for, is not a 10 year old merely a potential adult, and therefore not subject to the laws that adults must live by, and not protected either?
"And why? By what right is such devastation inflicted on her life? The answer is that here in the United States, just as in the Middle East, there are large numbers of people who believe that the cloak of religion and their claim to be inspired by the will of God entitles them to practice lunacy..."
The individual has the right to not inflict themselves with pregnancy. Unless the author would say that all pregnancies are to be engineered by the state, against a woman's will? WTF is wrong with this ass?
As an atheist, I find no need to seek higher powers to tell me that a baby is a life that should be protected, and to go against all that is motherhood by killing your baby is a bold statement about a woman's morals, and also what she should expect from other humans- summary execution.
Linking a piece does not mean that we agree with it. Just putting it out there!
agreed. I just wanted to disagree with the link. Good link, fires my blood, exercises my will to stand up.
A while ago someone asked, paraphrasing here, what my motivation was as a non-believer. I should have replied "abortion". If we can't get this one right, what can we expect? There is no grey area in this for me, and I dispise those, like the author, who seek to create moral confusion on this.
Summary execution? What a guy you are, Phil. A champ. A modern-day Margaret Sanger only more so.
No wonder you're an atheist: No religion would have you.
Fox could pick this up for a Wednesday night show. They could call it NO SURVIVORS as they shoot, hang, or electrocute the women who had abortions that week. Probably have to be a three-hour show, though. I wonder who would sponsor it? Viagra? Save the Children in Third World Countries Fund?
Re: abortion is murder
Murderes should be punished.
Reismen's reason fails to identify when a human is seen as human.
Hope he ain't a murderer's target.
The issue brooks no compromise--but if it did, I'd say that Iran actually has a workable law. At 90 days, it's a human and abortion is a crime. Such a law pleases no one, but might avert a civil war.
personally, I'm with Phil--if you don't want a baby, don't expose yourself to the possibility. that's pretty damn simple. there's gotta be something morally wrong with ending a human life because you haphazardly created it by accident. of course at 19 who thinks of such matters.
Takes me awhile to understand that you will bow to Shit e mullas' opine as to what is Human.
Say it ain't so, buddy.
i dunno --the whole issue is out my league, leag. I do know that once it's not wrong to kill an innocent, a very great line has been crossed, one that the ancient wisdoms warn and warn against.
i mean, no matter how you feel about religion, or God, or the soul, or afterlife, or transcendence, or anything in the spiritual realm, there are certain practical benefits to mankind's maintaining an agreement that human life has meaning in and of itself. History is chockful of the horrors that eventually result when that agreement is breached past a certain tipping point.
Where is 21st century America's tipping point i do not know but it IS a question we should ask ourselves. often. and soon.
I agrree,murder is murder and justice's hunt has a nasty come round.
21st Century came in drunken with the blood of innocents killed in the womb. Tippin' began when SCOUS lost all credibility and licensed murder by Roe v Wade.
They still do, with last ruling legitmizing clinical method for destruction of souls in bodies unseen till murderous instruments rape their physical sanctuary.
Actually the issue and our law, prior to Roe v., have always presupposed a compromise. Abortions had always occurred and will always occur, it simply fails as a national issue barring a constitutional amendment in answer to Roe, a mistake, I believe, while Roe will eventually be over ruled. The role of the national executive is that of a national leader. A belief, like that of the author, i.e., relating the size of the human being to the worth of the human being, would probably lose him any states where abortion was not practiced in a run for president. Of course a fetus is a human being at that stage of human development. Abortion is wrong but it should be settled by the states while national funding of the practice would be barred by any sensible reading of the constitution. As the states where abortion is liberalized decay into permissive, high tax and anti-family enclaves the rest of the country can flourish as zones of tradition which respect life as well as liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some questions for Reismen: how can you tell when a fetus becomes a human being? When is the moment when a fetus switches over from being a a blob of inanimate tissue to a human being with all the rights and responsibilities that entails? Exactly what change takes place?
As for the main thrust of his article, yes, all those who collaborate in killing another human being unlawfully are equally guilty of murder, and must be punished. That is Justice. However, there is also room for Mercy in our legal system as well - we show it when dealing with juvenile offenders, for example. This is one area where it would be advisable to apply it - go after those who encourage and profit from it, just as we come down harder on drug dealers than we do on one-time drug users. Repeat offenders are another issue...
In any case, political compremise should not be confused with moral standards. Just because we can't do something should not be taken to mean that there is no moral imparitive not to do so.
The boyfriend "men" who insist upon abortions should be summarily executed, too. They always lie after the fact, but they threaten shame and lack of support even though they more than do their part to make a baby, not caring when their girlfriends say it wouldn't be safe. There will always be men and their needs of the moment and their threats when the "moment" ends up too complicated for their unburdened lives.
Yeah, human life is so meaningful that some think they should cop others' to add meaning to theirs... Fortunately, there are men out there who are responsible, disciplined, loving, and who still have their fun without helping to rain down tragedy on themselves, loved ones, fetuses and society. Women are not absolved for their part, of course. But how can men have it both ways-- females are to accommodate and please and not be TOO independent. Birth control has to fall to them only, or never pre-marital sex? Women are to need a man in their lives, the father in their child's life, but when he refuses...
Gender morality trap.
Uh, it's called "Choice". (abstinance works every time it is tried, I have heard...)
Dear, we all have free will, otherwise it is called "rape". Any woman who stays with a rapist "boyfriend" has sentenced herself, and is her own jailer.
Execution for lying is what you would advocate? Fine, as long as we start with Congress.
Guess you're right, Phil. A boyfriend who insists on an abortion and drives girlfriend to the clinic bears no culpability whatsoever. After the day when BOTH had a choice and failed in their responsibilities, "choice" becomes: his getting to walk away, especially in the days before accurate paternity testing, her dumping the guy when he does so and then working as a single mother, with baby in daycare.
These days there's next to no excuse for abortion, with marriageless parenting less stigmatized and adoption of (healthy) babies so popular, unless a mother has a dangerous illness or the fetus deformities. Women who conceive (with a man who did 50% of the conception) can and should have the babies and pursue the fathers' fair share of child support.
Would venture that most here have engaged in pre- marital sex and wouldn't actually have wanted each and every one of their beloved (of age) girlfriends to demand a ring and ceremony before doing the deed. Mistakes happen and birth control can fail. Marriage is probably the best option in this case, but some act as if they're not ready for commitment. Too bad for the baby.
Men who take responsibility for begetting children are to be commended. I mean, really, it shouldn't be particularly good of them to do so, just expected. But we live in a day when it's exceptional for them to "do the right thing." Good guys. And women who follow through with inconvenient pregnancies in a day of abortion "on demand" and who are responsible, dedicated parents are pretty terrific, too. Not speaking of welfare babies, here, although there are truly needy people in bad situations out there. The season is perfect for thinking of them with donations and also with personal support for those we know having babies in difficult situations.
I'm no saint. Men and women who can abstain until ready for parenthood or who follow through with having and caring for their babies when "accidents" happen, are on the side of life and creation.
You are right about a lot of stuff here.
One thing: men can't walk away, DNA test or no. The law is just NOT on their side, should the woman persue it, and in some cases even on her behalf.
In places such as California, all a woman has to do is name you the father of the child. The state does the rest for their cut of the 18+ years of support. If the man doesn't contest the ruling, or doesn't get the summons, within a year, he's on the hook, DNA doesn't even matter at that point.
I just can't bring myself to make excuses for abortion. Life sucks and is challenging yes, throwing away life and creating a mythology to assuage the guilt is un-healthy for society too. When people are raised to believe that any bump in the road gives them an excuse to get rid of inconvenient things like babies, how does that make you feel about retirement?
You boomers, all of you, had better hope that Life Loving Gen-Xers and Y-ers and I guess Z-ers have the reigns, or it's soylent green for you! I mean, you wouldn't want your kids to have to dump you into a retirement home and work two jobs, too bad for the gummer,? Just sayin'- there's consequences for a life long commitment to non-responsibility.
oh, the boomers will turn on a dime--there will be nothing more sacred than life for the over 65 pro-choicers. That's a no-brainer.
Well said, Phil. Yes, some paternity, child support and custody laws are atrociously unfair to men and need to be changed. We could use a lot more fairness in the system and in our personal lives, and less kneejerk PC feminist legislation, and we especially should cultivate a deepened respect for life and liberty and for the individual and social responsibility that must go with them, else life is diminished for everyone.
Buddy Larsen, you must've had your irony pill this morn :) Bet you're right as rain about the Boomers!
Well said words Mary... and Phil. A contentious and dividing issue. One can say not national, so then state... but still it will come down to the individual. No matter any particular law. Abortions have been done since there were pregnancies, I suspect. And will continue to be done.
And, as I seem to harp on too much... the clock is not suddenly going to run backward. Changing life and culture is what it is. We need learn new ways to instill old values. Work with what is and not with what we would like it to be. I happen to support a woman's right to choose... until the beginning of the third trimester. But of course would prefer that there were no abortions at all. So how do we deal with, or incorporate my views... which I suspect a majority of Americans hold.
I guess I'm trying to say that bringing law enforcement into the debate does nothing for stopping the practice, I think. It just runs it underground. Much like drugs. True it may lower absolute numbers... but at what cost?
It just occured to me... I do not belong here, in most ways. I would likely be on the wrong side of the firing squad should things work out as some would wish. So be it.
I wouldn't wish for firing squads either. Just answering the question. "what if ..." the stupid snarky author of that OpEd opened up a can of worms in my mind. I always go to black/white extremes in logic which never work out in reality, to prove a point.
I just refuse to discuss the issue without starting at the most critical point: life is an egg and sperm united, period. Don't pretend it's not, (like the author of the piece) just to make some point. We have to agree on the definition of "is" first.
All right.. thanks for the explanation. I really don't wish to enter into an 'is' discussion... my only thought is that your 'is' sounds like a total ban on abortions. Just my opinion, but I don't think that has much chance of success. We have to think of this issue in different ways. Ways that unite and do not divide.
Re: I don't want to vote
Sentiment aside, I won't vote for anyone who looks like smells like or talks like JFK, the epitome of charismatic Pres. candidate.
Making a list of those kind.
Rudy's double talk smells just like itand Hillbillary's joined at the neck.
Mitt's vascillating and Boss-tone demure sounds like it.
McCain's straight talk smells of foie gras, too.
Hussein is charismaticly bowed to his heritage.
JFK's stench comes up on all the above.
awright, Leag--fess up--you're a Fred or Ron guy--something tells me--some subtle hint in your conversation.
It doesn't take but too much time to follow the crumbs.
Pauline is ugly and uncharismatic but cutting and running middle east only makes him Reaganesque.
Uncharismatic Fred gets the checkered flag.
He doesn't worship demigods but sites true on about Reagan's failure in the middle east.
Reagan said it was mistake to go into Lebenon but real mistake was cutting and running.
Murderous actions taken during legalization cannot be prosecuted ex post facto.
Once we stick SCOUS legalized murder of innocents back in a can.
States will have to prosecute the murderous, if they criminalize abortions.
All the hatefilled chicklets predisposed to infanticide can move to states that will have them.
Justice will follow.
English common law, as it developed in the US prior to 1973, held the abortionist liable to criminal penalty. The woman was generally not. I can hurt myself physically but I cannot enter a contract to hurt another. The social stigma attached to a woman who sought an abortion was usually enough to restrain such an action. Orphanges and adoption were the socially accepted institutions offering solutions to the problem of 'unwanted' pregnancies. The statistics proffered by abortion advocates regarding back alley abortions and dying young women are bogus, of course, while the numbers reflecting the death of innocents under the cover of law are real. The health effects of legal abortion are not good while the effects on health in pre-Roe America are based on statistical fantasy. Roe was not about justice. Roe was about abstract gender 'equality' at any cost. The intermediating institutions and habits of orphanages and respect for life needed to be destroyed in order for the sexual revolution to be enjoyed by women as much as the 'liberationists' believed it was being enjoyed by men by removing the mild social stigma that was applied to women who became pregnant outside of marriage and were forced to give up 4-5 months of activity to give birth to a child to be put up for adoption.
Dumpsters filled with dead children is hardly a solution for the bruised feelings of women with 'problem pregnancies' or the irresponsible fathers. Justice Blackmun and those who concurred were victims of the 'spirit of the times' and they, like many late, progressive era simpletons, have blood on their hands.
We don't have 'social stigma' as a workable gestalt anymore. And yes, the pendulum perhaps swung too far in addressing 'gender' equality. An issue that 'did' need addressing, to my mind.
So we start jailing Doctor's... I'm not sure that is a workable solution either. The broader public may view that as a rather draconian prescription. Though I may be wrong on that, of course.
Thing is, is that the horse has left the barn. There need be new ways of dealing with that... simply put. The 'old' ways are not working, for the most part. We need broader visions, not narrower ones, to bring the sides together so that an acceptable solution can be found. A solution that a supra majority of folks can live with.
I don't think it helps advance the dialog to label those with differing opinions 'simpletons'.
Blackmun's reasoning WAS simplistic. Serving the zietgeist by unilaterally negating the laws of the states was incredibly arrogant at minimum. Assuming the statistical hocus-pocus he relied on in making that decision was correct is almost by defintion the assumption of a simpleton. History and cultural tradition, as well as the powers of the states and citizens were jettisonned simply because he and his concurring bretheren believed they were wiser than the historical tradition of the states and citizens. So, here we are, 30 million dead innocents later, and the best you've got is to be offended by my accurate characterizations of bad reasoning? This is a STATE issue and will return to the states when Roe/Doe are overturned.
I am no fan of judicial fiat... thus my comment re 'pendulum'... in general. So, fine, we shift a resolution of the problem back to the 'States'. Will this contribute to solving the overall problem. Doubtful, in my opinion. It just kicks the can further down the road. All I am asking for is new and different approaches to finding longterm solutions, that the nation as a whole can live with.
So, I misread you then, you were speaking only of the court when you spoke of 'simpletons'? And not just anyone who might have a differing opinion than yours.
Well, Mr. McLeod,
By the declarations of Phil and Tom C., perhaps a firing squad for the Justices would be in order. No sense in parsing gray areas here. We can be simplistic and simply kill all the women who have had abortions, all the doctors who provided them, and all the Justices.
The stats are staggering: Approximately 1,300,000 women killed per year. Same number of 'possible' children. And think of the hours the Congress will have to spend to appoint new Justices: 1,300,000 hours when they could be working to make laws or something.
Maybe the Justices would work with each state to reform their social service agencies so that every abused and abandoned child can find the perfect home. That reminds me of that story a year or so ago where a woman called police to say some monkeys were in a dumpster. Police found two kids. One was 19 and weighed 39 pounds; the other, 11 and weighed 27 pounds. There were three more 'monkeys' living in the same closet in chains in a house where the two biological children were fat little pigs. The Justices could work on stuff like that. The new ones, of course. Not the badasses we have there now.
Damn. That's a lot of dead women, Phil. Why not just kill infant females at birth like China does? At least that way, the woman killed for having an abortion won't leave behind six kids the social welfare department has to farm out.
Don't kill 'em all. I need a maid, I'm sick of pushing the electroluz around all by myself.
Meta- Your premise is mistaken. The beauty of the law is it's history. Ignoring the historical reality is counterproductive. It would be a radical state which would 'kill women' for having an abortion. If the practice were illegal only an abortionist could be prosecuted. Since it would go back to the states, abortions would be obtainable until the country as a whole came to it's senses. What's your solution for the kids you've described? Death? Since the life of a child has no value in the womb, why should they have value 6 years out of the womb when still dependent on others? Does the state sanctioning of abortion have any effect on the perception of children by the more marginal segments of society? Try to use your imagination. Why should the dimwitted, state dependant, slothful 'parents' you've described, care about their kids if they've come to the conclusion that their problems would be mangeable had they only aborted them? The Supreme Court said it was OK.
This issue is all gray areas, as it always was. Survey the laws of the states prior to Roe and you'll see that's the case. Justice Blackmun and planned parenthood have made it a black and white issue.
My premise isn't wrong. You don't even know what it is. I'm merely mocking you and Phil and your bloody thoughts that fester and bleed in black and white.
By your mewling, it seems severe, or any, child abuse is acceptable over having that unwanted life terminated before it received its first slap. Repulsive.
You are equivocating. Killing some pre-born is more acceptable to you than having a chance at living. My position is anything but black and white. Blackmun's was black and white. A 'mother' has absolute and total control over the life of her unborn child. There is no gray. Niether the father or society has any legal right or interest in the matter. In the proces, life is debased. Avoiding the unkown pain and sorrows of life is your rationale.
You try to use your imagination: How does this match up with reality: "Why should the dimwitted, state dependant, slothful 'parents' you've described, care about their kids if they've come to the conclusion that their problems would be mangeable had they only aborted them? " What on earth kind of thinking is this? It's not even close to thinking.
Why did describe the situation? Are you justifying the killing of innocents on the grounds that things would be worse for them in life? Crystal ball gazing ain't thinking.
Tom C.... "until the country as a whole came to it's senses"... what kind of dream world are you living in my friend. This country has never come to its senses. Except for defeating our external enemies... and even that is in doubt today.
You seem to have the notion that State's rights will take care of this issue. You also seem to be missing Meta's point. Who exactly would be taking care of these forty or so million aborted babies. The kind of folks she described is who. I'm sorry, but the thought of a 39 pound 19 year old repulses me just as much, if not more actually, as aborting a three day old zygote. Take that as you will.
Your reliance on historical precedence is overly optimistic, I fear. To my mind such can only be applied to larger concepts. Such as freedom, for example. Not so much the particulars involved in same.
Black and White will not solve this. Mature, elevated and intelligent discussion will do better good.
Sorry--bad taste to joke on such a thread. The problem with any and every discussion is that the issue cuts right to the bone in one fell swoop do not pass go.
Thus you have phil & tom sounding like Attila when of course they're not for killing off 1.3 mm women/yr.
It's just that there IS no middle ground on the issue--it's either murder or it ain't.
So, where can a po bastid be reasonable?
Luther is trying to be but it's just throwing him into the one camp despite all his efforts. It's a life & death thing and death is the end of the story--so WHERE'S THE COMPROMISE gonna come from? Answer, it ain't never gonna come from nowhere. We have to fight a civil war over it, winner takes all. Or compromise at 90 days. As Luther says, Roe v Wade can disappear tomorrow and the casus belli would be still sitting there in the living room.
We have to define "human being"--maybe a plebiscite.
buddy- The compromise comes from where it's always come:the states. let the shades of gray play out there.
agree, but the general problem is that now that the issue is so hot and so visible, the battle for black and white will in the absence of RvW be fought interminably in fifty separate states. Oh, maybe it'll go back to the gray area (sort of where 'waterboarding' needs to remain, if only people could ever shut up), but I'm afraid those days are past.
what i'm trying to ask is, say RvW goes and it goes back to the states, and say 25 states legalize & subsidize the practice.
Are the pro-life folks in the other 25 states going to be happy to look the other way, now that the sensibilities are so sharpened and the issue so reduced, and accept Americans still being snuffed in the womb?
And what about the pro-choicers in the states which go pro-life? Are they now going to happily go back to life under what they consider an oppressive state?
The crucial decade of the 1850s offers clues, i'm afraid.
buddy- that's the way it was prior to roe. people decided for themselves. without roe, there is hope for change, under roe change is impossible.
Wise words Buddy... but definition alone will not solve this problem. You may be right... when we send it back to the states... and civil war ensues... that 'may' solve it, for a few hundred years... it will then rear its head again. I would wish to solve it now. Lets worry about something else in years hence. Your joke was okay. Humor in all, no matter how macabre, in a way... it keeps us human. You wouldn't believe the humor we had over there. Sick.
No. Women seeking abortions will travel to states that provide them.
Nothing is solved by turning this over to the states. Except more trouble, as you point out.
Herd mentality is common vernacular, mita.
You are correct, trouble will trouble the troubled.
Homocide is willful kill of human being.
Being in human by humans in embryo is human being.
Kill numbers are down from the ninety's but in 2002, 1.29 million human beings in vitro.
Persons supporting this kill number could be persuaded that about 500,000 females were killed that year alone and each year since, amounts to about 3 million murdered girls 2002 to present.
Some hunt y'all applaud, lads n lassies.
A couple of points:
1) Unrestricted abortion has the general effect of devaluing life, incrementally, over time.
2) The constitution does not address the issue thus it's a matter for the states and the people.
3)Roe/Doe removed all restrictions on abortion from time of conception until the moment of birth. The conflict over the practice of 'partial birth abortion is a result.
4) The practice of 'pba' is barbaric but fully within the 'law'.
5)The average citizen is unaware that a woman may kill her child up to the point of passing through the birth canal, i.e. fully formed and wholly 'viable'.
6)Polls have shown that people are shocked when made aware that this is the case.
7)Prior to roe, the state of New York among others, had 'liberalized' their abortion regulations placing limits only on the time up to which an abortion could be performed. Such regulations or term limitations were nullified by Doe.
8)Any doctor who performs (late term) abortions, and there aren't too many of them, has questionable medical ethics regarding the preservation and protection of life.
9) Scientific advances have settled the question regarding the nature of the life in the womb.
10)The concept that some innocent human beings would 'better off dead' smacks of the sickness of 20th century scientism and totalitarianism.
11) The argument that women would be 'charged with murder' for aborting their children when roe/doe are over ruled is a straw man. The common law tradition deals with the issue. It a particularly weak argument for defenders of the status quo since THEY are the ones equating unrestricted abortion with murder. Abortion is abortion, the state of mind of the killer is essential to establishing 'murder'.
Don't wish to disagree with your points. And will not.
But you aren't addressing the issue of how to solve this, other than returning it to the States. I think Buddy's idea above of 90 days may be the best we can hope for as a compromise position. And this issue will require compromise if it is to be settled peacefully.
I am still sensing that you would like a total ban on abortions. As I said above, I would prefer there were no abortions as well. But those days are past, if indeed there ever were such a day.
As Mr. Meta suggests above there really are other considerations in this debate... whether we like it or not. To ignore them as not germane is folly as I see it, and will not lead to a comprehensive solution.
With all due respect. What I want and what can be done are two different things. I would'nt presume to have all the answers. Justice Blackmun was more than willing to presume he did. There is no perfect situation. The points raised are factual and, if addressed, might help clarify this absurd situation brought on by the court. The action of the court has curtailed even the possibilty of a solution. The facts are the facts.
Buddy suggested sharia law shit e style, only if issue brooked compromise.
Me thinks, he doesn't think it does and has masterfully hooked compost, while not keepers, aren't going to throw'm back, either.
There is not a reasonable compromise.
Human life is sacred in it's conception.
Compromise is surrendering to viciousness and one surrenders to hounds of death life's crown.
leag- Like the abortion advocates you seem to believe that the discussion has ended. I agree with your sentiments regarding the sanctity of innocent life but the damage has been done. Improvement will come slowly but it needs to begin. Protecting even one innocent life is worth the effort. Changing hearts and minds takes time. I'm not ready to kill in the name of life.
"Changing hearts and minds takes time. I'm not ready to kill in the name of life."
That's pretty much what I'm saying Tom. I just think we need new approaches in changing those 'hearts and minds'.
Luther- I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I spelled it out in my points. One by one they should be refuted. Perfection is the enemy of the good. Killing innocents out of convenience is evil. The people should reclaim their power over abortion and roe/doe are bad laws. Explain why you disagree, if you do.
Well then Tom, I guess we're not hearing each other. As I don't think you understand me either.
I said I was not interesting in rebutting your points, as they are not a part of why I entered this discussion. If you were to read through my comments I believe I have made my position clear.
Discussion on issue is ongoing and should be in the legislatures of the several states and amongst the people.
Prinicples are not compromisable but foundational.
Time comes when hounds of hell must be checked, and brought under rule of law.
Most vicious which cannot be collared and brouht to heel.
Executive function under law must be armed and ready to defend the innocent in extreme circumstances.
First things first. There can be no useful discussion as long a roe/doe are the law of the land. Legislatures can talk themselves blue in the face. Any regulation of the practice is unconstitutional.
States legislate on abortion and people dicuss it to this day.
Yes, Roe v Wade needs to be undone but it does not preclude states regulating abortion.
My discussing isn't useless and I don't think yours is either.
No, sorry to say. Regulating abortion is unconstitutional. You can license the clinics but I don't think you can do much more, if I'm not mistaken. A real debate would occur if the states could regulate the practice.
There is more being done and it's doing percolates issue back up to the Supreme Court.
Each time it gets there is another oppurtunity for Supreme Court to join the human race in the womb.
That's their job, protect human life.
People must keep moving this issue in every venue available without compromise.
just for the heck of it--and just to throw a little light on what human nature might offer in the future, read this wiki:
Go futher & search ''compromise of 1820'' and ''compromise of 1850'' and ''Dred Scott Decision''.
Can the abortion issue do to us what the slavery issue did to us? Did SCOTUS bring on the Civil War via the Dred Scott decision?
I dunno--but it's a question. Everything is connected to everything else, and wars always have already begun before anyone really realizes it. The realization of it always occurs as a revelation of something that is already there.
I think you make a great point Buddy, and I have to say that that point is one which I fear if/when this issue is sent back to the States. Though I may be long dead before it reaches flash-point.
It is an issue that is a lighting rod for polarization, side picking and overwrought emotions. For most everyone.
I mean, line it out. Unfettered state decisions will most likely filter out in a fairly defined geographical way. Much like Red and Blue today. Contiguous areas, defined borders abutting each other... prime makings for trouble.
I agree we shouldn't ignore that situation--the last time, the die was cast long before Fort Sumter--long before anyone could've imagined what their recalcitrance was making inevitable.
By the time they saw it coming, it was too late to stop it.
Exactly. And this situation could coalesce with even greater intensity. And also, I reluctantly say I feel that many might like to see just that.
There are no new territories, fellas. Abortion was always state issue and states had various regulations. The Civil war was fought over new territories being slave or free. Now, as to Roe being as silly a decision as Dred Scott, the answer has to be yes. All Roe did, like Dred Scott, was end the discussion. People who disagree don't like having their voices cut off.
Good points, but you need to broaden your def of "new territory".
In our 19th century the 'new territories' were more or less settled and familiar, just not yet covered by the legal designation of statehood.
By the same token today, activists in any state with agreeable laws will regard every state with disagreeable laws as ''new territory''.
The state legislatures and the people who put them there make the decisions. Lobbying for abortion restrictions or 'liberalization', like anything else, is what the people and legislatures do. What's the problem? If you don't like the laws where you live, move. Dred Scott invalidated the laws of the free state where the controversy occurred. Taney's tortured reasoning which dehumanized a man because of his skin color was a contradiction of reality so great that conflict of some kind was inevitable. Roe was similar in it's treatment of the wishes of the people in Texas regarding their regulation of abortion. His twisted reasoning based largely on outmoded statsitics and primitive medical science would be hard to maintain today. He had a result in mind and twisted the selective science and social statistics in order to reach his goal. The Texas law was directed toward abortionists. Fetus viability was considered. Doe threw out any considerations of viability. All state regulations regarding the practice thus became unconstitutional. Theoretically and in practice, a 9 month old, fully formed human infant, can now be killed as long as it's feet are still in the birth canal and the states have no right to retrict such a practice other than through social pressure on those willing to perform such an act. Does this really make sense?
Theoretically is correct but not in practice.
Free states (not Yankified) dont' abide such despite SCOTUS.
States right to act by executive or legislature is not precluded even by that body's latest indict of innocents.
Despite, gloomy, dreary eyed discourse on coming civil war on the issue American's are long past taking arms on this issue.
Unless chicklets bent on infanticide are secretly forming a feminists resurgent posse.
One enlightened physician can halt Supreme Court's murderous theoretical becoming practical.
Leag- Hope this isn't the last word on this but here goes-
Taking your points one by one...
1)I'm not sure what you mean.The 'law' is the law.
2) There can be no regulation regarding the practice. All limitations on the 'right' of the mother have been determined to be unconstitutional. Individuals,yankified or not, can't be forced to perform the more barbaric procedures although the state may not prohibit them.
3)See above (2)
6)How? Unless he sits on the court.
Doctor(s) can't be held at gunpoint by law.
Many doctors and hospitals do not abort life for the whim of selfish "right".
States do regulate abortion check your state statutes.
Amongst others are issues of informed consent, spousal consent, parental consent, reporting requirements, types of procedures not specificly sanctioned by SCOTUS are legislatable.
American law is fluid even, contitutional law.
Pushing against muderous "right" at every sighting includes working every angle including free assemblies around baby killing clinics.
Some states require doctors and religiously affiliated institutions to perform the procedure if they want to prcatice in those states. Parental consent/informed consent rules are in effect in a small number of states. PBA bans are in effect in some with the exception of 'the health of the mother' rule which tends to negate any real, prcatical restriction. The other restrictions involve medical protocol without restricting the procedure. Some states ban 'assembly around clinics'. Others mandate taxpayer funds be used others ban the use of those funds.