Ten Commandments before Supreme Court

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Question: Has anyone really met anyone who approves of partial-birth abortion? I'm really genuinely curious here.

 

My Mom takes the feminist line about this issue, bitching about a bunch of old men in Washington who never will be pregnant deciding what should and shouldn't happen inside a woman's body, but even she wants to see PBAs gone.

 

Is there anyone who really supports having PBAs? Because I'm starting to think that the only reason anyone defends them is the old "give them a quarter and they'll take an inch" philosophy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Please explain how each, or any, of those decisions has done away with the restrictions on abortion that the Roe decision supported.

 

(Although, you didn't just list the decisions, but the dissenting opinions as well, which are irrelevant since they have no legal weight behind them.)

They did away with parental notification laws, waiting periods before abortions, legalized partial birth abortions, outlawed a state's controls over abortion ---

 

You know, you could cease being lazy and actually READ the decisions yourself. You asked for the decision --- I gave them to you.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Question: Has anyone really met anyone who approves of partial-birth abortion? I'm really genuinely curious here.

Then why oppose the banishment?

My Mom takes the feminist line about this issue, bitching about a bunch of old men in Washington who never will be pregnant deciding what should and shouldn't happen inside a woman's body, but even she wants to see PBAs gone.

Hey, most guys never get raped. I assume your mom thinks men have no business making any laws regarding rape.

Is there anyone who really supports having PBAs? Because I'm starting to think that the only reason anyone defends them is the old "give them a quarter and they'll take an inch" philosophy.

Then that is THEIR problem. If you'll stand beside blatant infanticide, then you should be smeared for doing so.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Then why oppose the banishment?

I do? IMHO, there's no logical reason to need an abortion at such a late stage. You had plenty of time to think about it.

[SuperJerk 0]

Please explain how each, or any, of those decisions has done away with the restrictions on abortion that the Roe decision supported.

 

(Although, you didn't just list the decisions, but the dissenting opinions as well, which are irrelevant since they have no legal weight behind them.)

They did away with parental notification laws, waiting periods before abortions, legalized partial birth abortions, outlawed a state's controls over abortion ---

 

You know, you could cease being lazy and actually READ the decisions yourself. You asked for the decision --- I gave them to you.

-=Mike

I find it humorous that you think I'm lazy for not wanting to prove you're points for you. Need any help painting that fence, Tom Sawyer?

 

 

But what if I told you I DID read them, but that I still don't see how the restrictions you mentioned (parental notification laws, waiting periods before abortions, legalized partial birth abortions) were protected by the original Roe decision?

 

As far as "outlawed a state's controls over abortion" goes, you need to be more specific about what kind of controls you mean. Roe did protect some state controls, but it also did away with others.

[Guest MikeSC]

Please explain how each, or any, of those decisions has done away with the restrictions on abortion that the Roe decision supported.

 

(Although, you didn't just list the decisions, but the dissenting opinions as well, which are irrelevant since they have no legal weight behind them.)

They did away with parental notification laws, waiting periods before abortions, legalized partial birth abortions, outlawed a state's controls over abortion ---

 

You know, you could cease being lazy and actually READ the decisions yourself. You asked for the decision --- I gave them to you.

-=Mike

I find it humorous that you think I'm lazy for not wanting to prove you're points for you. Need any help painting that fence, Tom Sawyer?

 

 

But what if I told you I DID read them, but that I still don't see how the restrictions you mentioned (parental notification laws, waiting periods before abortions, legalized partial birth abortions) were protected by the original Roe decision?

 

As far as "outlawed a state's controls over abortion" goes, you need to be more specific about what kind of controls you mean. Roe did protect some state controls, but it also did away with others.

If you claim that some restrictions are allowed --- and then proceed to strike down almost EVERY damned restriction possible (strange, a child can't go to the zoo with a school group without parental notification, but they CAN have an abortion) -- then the alleged intent of the original decision becomes clear and obvious.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Are you familiar with the restrictions that the decision actually did allow to be put on abortion?

[Guest MikeSC]

Are you familiar with the restrictions that the decision actually did allow to be put on abortion?

I have no faith in ANY restriction being upheld.

 

If parental notification for a minor got shot down, there is NOTHING that won't be.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Are you familiar with the restrictions that the decision actually did allow to be put on abortion?

I have no faith in ANY restriction being upheld.

 

If parental notification for a minor got shot down, there is NOTHING that won't be.

-=Mike

I'll take that as a "No".

[Guest MikeSC]

Are you familiar with the restrictions that the decision actually did allow to be put on abortion?

I have no faith in ANY restriction being upheld.

 

If parental notification for a minor got shot down, there is NOTHING that won't be.

-=Mike

I'll take that as a "No".

It's that the constant re-drawing of the line makes it IMPOSSIBLE to determine what the restrictions would be --- since they have changed, fairly constantly, for years.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Are you familiar with the restrictions that the decision actually did allow to be put on abortion?

I have no faith in ANY restriction being upheld.

 

If parental notification for a minor got shot down, there is NOTHING that won't be.

-=Mike

I'll take that as a "No".

It's that the constant re-drawing of the line makes it IMPOSSIBLE to determine what the restrictions would be --- since they have changed, fairly constantly, for years.

-=Mike

Its not impossible to determine what the restrictions placed on abortion by the original 1973 Roe v. Wade decision are. That's what I was getting at.

 

In order to determine if they have been changing, you have to first know what they are (or were).

[Guest MikeSC]

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

 

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

 

© For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

 

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

 

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue since the Texas authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling that the Texas criminal abortion statutes are unconstitutional. P. 166.

 

 

They already shat on (b), with the banishment of something as simple as waiting periods. They shat on © by permitting partial-birth abortion in spite of state laws outlawing it. And they ignored the entire concept of minors not having the capacity to make crucial decisions about major situations by outlawing parental notification laws.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

They already shat on (b), with the banishment of something as simple as waiting periods. They shat on © by permitting partial-birth abortion in spite of state laws outlawing it. And they ignored the entire concept of minors not having the capacity to make crucial decisions about major situations by outlawing parental notification laws.

(b) Waiting periods have nothing to do with the health of the mother.

© Partial birth abortion laws must have a provision safeguarding the health of the mother in order to be in compliance with the Roe decision.

 

You may have a point about parental notification, though. I honestly don't know enough about child privacy rights to argue that they are protected Constitutionally, so I can see how you could think that the right to determine this would be left to the states in accordance witht he 10th Amendment.

[Guest MikeSC]

They already shat on (b), with the banishment of something as simple as waiting periods.  They shat on © by permitting partial-birth abortion in spite of state laws outlawing it. And they ignored the entire concept of minors not having the capacity to make crucial decisions about major situations by outlawing parental notification laws.

(b) Waiting periods have nothing to do with the health of the mother.

© Partial birth abortion laws must have a provision safeguarding the health of the mother in order to be in compliance with the Roe decision.

I will tell you, definitively, there is NO case medically whatsoever where PBA is needed. Not one.

 

Keep in mind, PBA involves bringing all BUT the head of the child out of the birth canal. Everything BUT the head. There is no situation where that is needed to save the woman's life. If the woman's life is in jeopardy, PBA would only make the situation worse.

 

As for waiting periods, they are every inch as valid Constitutionally as waiting periods for guns. And, unlike abortion, guns are specifically mentioned as a Constitutional right.

 

Seeing as how children lack the legal standing to sign contracts (to do such things as agree to surgery), then parental notification should be required.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Have waiting periods for guns held up in court?

[Guest MikeSC]

Have waiting periods for guns held up in court?

Yes.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Really? When.

 

I'm not being a smart ass. I'm curious since court cases involving the 2nd Amendment get NO press coverage whatsoever.

[Guest MikeSC]

Really? When.

 

I'm not being a smart ass. I'm curious since court cases involving the 2nd Amendment get NO press coverage whatsoever.

States are permitted to set up their own waiting periods, despite suits by the NRA. There is no present federal law.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Really?  When.

 

I'm not being a smart ass.  I'm curious since court cases involving the 2nd Amendment get NO press coverage whatsoever.

States are permitted to set up their own waiting periods, despite suits by the NRA. There is no present federal law.

-=Mike

Have there been decisions handed down on these lawsuits, or are they still pending? Have any gone to the Supreme Court yet?

[Guest MikeSC]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=67

-=Mike

[Shooting Star 0]

You americans get offended by EVERYTHING yet your the most liberal people in the world....makes no sense.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You americans get offended by EVERYTHING yet your the most liberal people in the world....makes no sense.

We're only liberal with our TV, music, & movies. Otherwise, we're quite conservative.

[SuperJerk 0]

You americans get offended by EVERYTHING yet your the most liberal people in the world....makes no sense.

Americans are not monolithic, you know. We don't all think the same things, and sometimes different groups within American have differing opinions. What offends Fred Phelps isn't going to offend Larry Flynt. When two groups within our country disagree it doesn't make us contradictory, but diverse.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You americans get offended by EVERYTHING yet your the most liberal people in the world....makes no sense.

We're only liberal with our TV, music, & movies. Otherwise, we're quite conservative.

Yeah, and even then there's a buttload of people offended by our TV, music and movies...

[The Czech Republic 0]

You americans get offended by EVERYTHING yet your the most liberal people in the world....makes no sense.

We're only liberal with our TV, music, & movies. Otherwise, we're quite conservative.

And not even so much that any more, because it seems like every week there's a new case of someone saying "dammit" in prime time, then you hear that ABC wrote a letter asking the FCC if what they aired was obscenity, and then the FCC tells them "no it wasn't" and ABC says "okay just making sure, guys! (pleasedon'tfineus)" and my God I wish the government would step off the airwaves

[Guest BDC]

Friend of mine that used to work in television has an interesting theory about that actually. In the old days, the big networks basically banded together and created the standards that were acceptable and used them as a way to dominate television. Now with the advent of cable stations, they have lost their power and strapped themselves into a straightjacket which no one else has. Hence we have things like South Park and The Shield while the networks are trying to find the next Friends.

[SuperJerk 0]

Your friend sounds very observant.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You americans get offended by EVERYTHING yet your the most liberal people in the world....makes no sense.

We're only liberal with our TV, music, & movies. Otherwise, we're quite conservative.

Yeah, and even then there's a buttload of people offended by our TV, music and movies...

And usually, that only happens during an election year.

 

 

[SuperJerk 0]

They had an interview on the PBS program "Now" last Friday with former Alabama Judge Roy Moore, who had refused to have the Ten Commandments removed.

 

Contrary to the reasonable position that the Commandments could be displayed for cultural or historic reason, Moore went a different direction with his rationale.

 

He took the position that America is a nation founded on Christian values (which is, of course, total bullshit) and that the US government officially aknowledged not just God, but the Judeo-Christian God in the Declaration of Indepedence. He also insisted that all law flows from the First Commandment, "Thou shall have no other God before me" because all morality comes from God.

 

So, basically, this confirms what I was saying all along. People who insist that the Ten Commandments should be displayed by the government really do want to impose their religous views on the rest of us.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Even Bill O'Reilly disagrees with Roy Moore.

 

I don't know why you bumped this thread, Robot, because usually you're not the kind of guy I'd expect to do that, although it did give me the enjoyment of seeing "You have chosen to ignore MikeSC." A statement that I've longed to see on this board for some time, almost a pity he blipped out of existance first.