Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    03 Jun '09 02:07
    https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp2009_inhonor

    Those of you who are disgusted with the radical christians for murdering George Tiller should do something about it. Make a donation to Planned Parenthood in his honor at the site above. I did.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    03 Jun '09 03:23
    Originally posted by rwingett
    https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp2009_inhonor

    Those of you who are disgusted with the radical christians for murdering George Tiller should do something about it. Make a donation to Planned Parenthood in his honor at the site above. I did.
    Me too. Done.
  3. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    03 Jun '09 04:37
    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 substantive due process.

    if you want to reduce the number of abortions, and that is a worthy goal, work toward a society that enables all who conceive who wish to carry the child to term to support and raise that child.

    the conservative position, the fundamentalist christian position, on the matter is beyond irresponsible -- it is immoral and, in my view, unconstitutional
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Jun '09 15:57 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    all laws limiting this medical procedure violate substantive due process.
    ALL laws??

    So, if, say, Massachusetts, prosecutes a a doctor for cutting the brain out of a baby whose mother was 9 months pregnant and ready to deliver in 20 minutes, that's unconstitutional?

    Under New York law (New York, not Alabama); abortion after 24 weeks is a felony!

    http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#125.40

    Is the New York law unconstitutional?

    Not according to the Supreme Court.
  5. 03 Jun '09 16:11
    Originally posted by rwingett
    https://secure.ga0.org/02/pp2009_inhonor

    Those of you who are disgusted with the radical christians for murdering George Tiller should do something about it. Make a donation to Planned Parenthood in his honor at the site above. I did.
    yes, in order to avenge his death we should kill some more babies.

    nice.
  6. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    03 Jun '09 16:12
    Originally posted by sh76
    ALL laws??

    So, if, say, Massachusetts, prosecutes a a doctor for cutting the brain out of a baby whose mother was 9 months pregnant and ready to deliver in 20 minutes, that's unconstitutional?

    Under New York law ([b]New York
    , not Alabama); abortion after 24 weeks is a felony!

    http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article125.htm#125.40

    Is the New York law unconstitutional?

    Not according to the Supreme Court.[/b]
    appeal to authority is a poor basis to justify the argument.

    of course courts have upheld some laws limiting abortion -- it is part of the political process of splitting the baby, so to speak.

    give me the compelling state interest in legislating limits on abortion -- not emotional appeals -- but the kind of compelling state interest that, for example, justifies governmental limitations on interstate commerce or criminal sentencing.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Jun '09 16:16 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    give me the compelling state interest in legislating limits on abortion -- not emotional appeals -- but the kind of compelling state interest that, for example, justifies governmental limitations on interstate commerce or criminal sentencing.
    Protecting the right to life of a baby who is viable outside of the mother; there's the compelling state interest.

    That's not me talking, that's Casey. And emotion has nothing to do with it.
  8. 03 Jun '09 16:26
    I wonder: why do both pro-crime and pro-choice camps not campaign for, say, free contraceptive pills for everyone? Seems like a win-win situation for both! No dead foetuses, no unwanted pregnancies.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    03 Jun '09 16:31
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I wonder: why do both pro-crime and pro-choice camps not campaign for, say, free contraceptive pills for everyone? Seems like a win-win situation for both! No dead foetuses, no unwanted pregnancies.
    Sounds like a good idea to me.

    But, WTF is the "pro-crime" camp? Can you make a point without being so snide about it?
  10. 03 Jun '09 16:39
    Originally posted by sh76
    Sounds like a good idea to me.

    But, WTF is the "pro-crime" camp? Can you make a point without being so snide about it?
    Of course it's a cynical reference to the pro-life camp.
  11. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    03 Jun '09 16:49 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Protecting the right to life of a baby who is viable outside of the mother; there's the compelling state interest.

    That's not me talking, that's Casey. And emotion has nothing to do with it.
    need to flesh that out -- what if the pregnancy, if not terminated, endangers the life of the mother?

    In a recent SupCt case on point -- resulting in an opinion with which I disagree -- public health care officials and nonprofit corporations that performed abortions, filed a class action against Missouri, challenging the constitutionality of a Missouri statute that regulated the performance of abortions. The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down several provisions of the statute pursuant to Roe v. Wade, and the State appealed from that decision.

    The SupCt reversed the appeals court. The Missouri statute stated in its preamble, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 1.205.1(1), (2) (1986), a finding that human life began at conception and that unborn children had protectable interests in life and well-being.

    Among other things, the statute prohibited the use of public employees and facilities to perform abortions not necessary to save the mother's life, and it prohibited the use of public funds to counsel a woman to have an abortion that was not necessary to save her life.

    On appeal, the Court reasoned that it was not necessary to determine the constitutionality of the statute's preamble because it simply expressed a value judgment and did not regulate abortions.

    The Court declined to invalidate the statute's prohibition against the use of public funds, employees, and facilities to provide abortions because the prohibition placed no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who chose to have an abortion. She was no less off than if the state had chosen not to provide public health care.

    The Court found that the statute's prohibition against public funded counseling in favor of abortions was moot because appellees contended that they were not adversely affected by this provision.

    There is an interesting dance being done here between conservative judicial activism and traditional common law priniciples of jurisprudence. The court avoided the substantive questions, dancing away from them, on the grounds that it is not empowered to decide abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it.

    That's the old Chief Justice Taft at the Tidal Basin joke I recall from law school.

    If the court wanted to reach those "abstract" principles, it could and would.

    I would argue that there no longer exists any bright line between the fundamental right that was established in Griswold and the fundamental right of abortion that was established in Roe. These two rights, because of advances in medicine and science, now overlap.

    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.

    That's why I suggest that we need to deal with one right, the right to procreate. We are no longer talking about two rights. I think the health rights of the woman always are supreme at any stage of pregnancy.
  12. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    03 Jun '09 17:02
    When it can be said that there is a human life at issue, whether there is a human life at conception that a compelling state interest may protect, is not something that is verifiable as a fact. It is a question verifiable only by reliance upon faith.

    It is a question of labels. Neither side in this debate would ever disagree on the physiological facts. Both sides would agree as to when a heartbeat can first be detected. Both sides would agree as to when brain waves can be first detected. But when you come to try to place the emotional labels on what you call that collection of physiological facts, that is where people part company.

    I suggest that there can be no ordered liberty for women without respecting their control over their education, their employment, their health, their childbearing and their personal aspirations.

    There does, in fact, exist a deeply rooted tradition that the government steer clear of decisions affecting the bedroom, childbearing and the doctor-patient relationship as it pertains to these concerns.

    Every state adopted anti-abortion legislation in the 1820's and the 1830's and the 1840's. But before that time it went without regulation.
    It was accepted, it was not a crime at common law, as Roe and other works have recognized. The move to regulate was not out of concern for the health of the fetus or the mother.

    We have here an issue that is so divisive and so emotional and so personal and so intimate, that it must be left as a fundamental right to the individual to make that choice under her then attendant circumstances, her religious beliefs, her moral beliefs and in consultation with her physician.

    This is a debate that every woman who becomes pregnant and doesn't wish to be pregnant has with herself. Women do not make these decisions lightly. They agonize over them. And they take what we see in the media and they personalize it and they go through it themselves and the very fact that it is so contested is one of those things that makes me believe that it must remain as a fundamental right with the individual and that government legislatures have no business invading this decision.
  13. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    03 Jun '09 17:05
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I wonder: why do both pro-crime and pro-choice camps not campaign for, say, free contraceptive pills for everyone? Seems like a win-win situation for both! No dead foetuses, no unwanted pregnancies.
    politics -- what are the politics of such an idea?

    who would buy into it?

    who would object and why?

    count the votes on both sides and you have your answer, I believe.
  14. Standard member Scriabin
    Done Asking
    03 Jun '09 17:17
    Originally posted by sh76
    Protecting the right to life of a baby who is viable outside of the mother; there's the compelling state interest.

    That's not me talking, that's Casey. And emotion has nothing to do with it.
    As I explain above, I disagree with Casey in the regard for which you cite it.

    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.

    We're dancing, again. Splitting the baby, politically, under judicial cover. This is activism, not law.
  15. 03 Jun '09 17:40
    Originally posted by Scriabin
    politics -- what are the politics of such an idea?

    who would buy into it?

    who would object and why?

    count the votes on both sides and you have your answer, I believe.
    who would buy into it?

    Sensible people.

    who would object and why?

    Idiots, because they're idiots.

    You're right, the idea is doomed*.



    *) Until recently, the contraceptive pill was indeed free in Holland, but now it's only free for women under the age of 23. I don't know if abortion rates have gone up, though.