Maddow: Pro-life gains “breathtaking”; Democrats are wimps
It’s always interesting to hear how the other side views its political proponents.
When they have whined in the past that pro-abortion politicians aren’t vocal enough, I have always held the opposite view.
But not lately.
While pro-life politicians could always do better, I have recently thought that particularly the Republican presidential candidates have come out quite strongly on the life issue. And to my knowledge, on January 23 John Boehner became the first Speaker of the House to ever address the March for Life. We’re seeing trickle-down pro-life.
And as everyone knows, we also made great gains in the states in 2011. The Washington Post published an interesting piece two days ago, “The state of Roe v. Wade in 9 charts.” Those charts do not bode well for pro-aborts. For example (click all to enlarge):
So when pro-abortion MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow complained on her January 23 show that…
There have been more rollbacks of abortion rights since the 2010 elections than in any time since Roe versus Wade was passed 39 years ago.
And this massive, coordinated offensive against abortion rights by the Republicans has frankly been aided by the fact that while Republicans love to campaign on this issue, Democrats don’t love to campaign on this issue.
… I wondered and hoped that she may be right. It was certainly not this way in the past, but perhaps pro-abortion politicians are indeed becoming skittish on the abortion issue. Do they sense something is amiss? Was 2011 really the year the tide turned?
What I found funny about Maddow’s segment was that she had loser Alan Grayson on to corroborate, as if he’s a poster child for pro-abort politicos to emulate? Ha.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tCN8wcfgWE[/youtube]
[HT: Newsbusters via Thomas]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Nice. Rachel Maddow is the Moe Howard of liberals. “This is all YOUR fault! Why I oughta…get over here you!”
R.Maddow seems to think that Democrats should control the agenda by “speaking out.”
She forgets that politicians are elected by voters, to represent voters, and can be fired by voters. Politicians know that the voters are not so excited about abortion as Maddow is.
Politicians know that the Abortion Industry is about as popular with voters as the slave trading and the Tobacco Industry (both of which used to popular with voters, but have fallen out of favor).
Astoundingly, we are now in an era in which politicians might be “privately pro-choice,” but publicly they must support a child’s Right to Life.
“I think the most fundamental right is the right to control your own body.” Alan Grayson
Wow. That’s quite a statement. The “right” to control your own body is above the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
However, abortion isn’t a matter of a woman controlling her own body. It’s a matter of a woman controlling and destroying the body of another human being. How is it that pro-choicers don’t understand that?
I can’t believe that those silly founding fathers forgot to add the “right to control your own body” to the list. What were they thinking?
Boohoo. I’m crying on the inside for you, Rachel. On the outside, I’m jumping for joy but don’t take any notice of me, I’m just a raving loony pro-lifer.
Liberal politicians don’t want to campaign on abortion rights because people are becoming better educated about what, exactly, abortion is. This is why the pictures of babies in utero as well as aborted babies must be shown.
The technology is a HUGE win for us. No longer can you say “blob of cells” or “products of conception” or “terminating the pregnancy.” It’s CLEARLY the killing of another human being. It’s so pitiful to see the proaborts scramble around, trying to make the language fit the crime (ie Doug), trying to redefine what it is to be human, and if that’s different from being A human. Whatever.
Abortion is murder. Big huge Olympic-sized swimming pool of DUH>
“I think the most fundamental right is the right to control your own body.” Alan Grayson
===============
Well…. if you can control when you get hungry or thirsty or sleepy or when you need to relieve yourself or if you can stop yourself from feeling cold/ hot or if you can control when you get tired…etc without killing yourself in the process THEN you have the right to state that you can now control your body….
…until hell freezes over, I don’t think anybody can even assert that they can “control” their body. It’s an illusion, people.
Hi RSD,
Alan Grayson, the first member of his family to walk upright. This Neanderthal was voted out of office yet we regularly see him on The Rachel Madcow Show and The (Mr) Ed, (the talking horse(patoot))Show.
hope madcows show tanks just like her bff keith olbermans did! this woman is off the chain!
Mary:
You may owe neanderthals an apology for such an odious comparison.
Yes, the Neanderthals buried their dead with some of their possessions. This new sub-species throws their dead in a hazardous waste bucket.
Hi Jerry and Hans,
Indeed I stand corrected. Neanderthals walked upright long before Grayson did and seemed to treat their dead children with more respect.
“The “right” to control your own body is above the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”
You wanna talk about the laws? Let’s talk about the law. Check out the nametag.
The language of the 4th Amendment, read very carefully, does in fact give people the rights to their own bodies free of any government interference unless the government has probable cause that a crime has been committed, and a careful list of seizures must be made if it has. The government should have no say and no power over someone who has committed no crime.
What this means is that the government has no right to determine whether or not a woman is pregnant in order to act upon that fact. HIPPA laws currently in effect should be obeyed by both government AND activists alike – in other words whether a woman is pregnant is not the business of anyone other than her, you don’t have a right to the information, ergo there really isn’t anything to talk about.
Unless, of course, you’d like to see modern-day America become an incarnation of Nicolae Ceaucescu’s Romania in which women were enslaved and monitored by police if it was suspected they were pregnant or might become pregnant, and all contraception was banned. The number of births to families in poverty increased exponentially resulting in the orphanages you still see today, and abortions also increased. But far be it for you to learn from history? Don’t you know that a “pro-life society” has been done, and on the grand scale that even y’all never dreamed about?
“Monthly gynecological examinations for all women of childbearing age were instituted, even for pubescent girls, to identify pregnancies in the earliest stages and to monitor pregnant women to ensure that their pregnancies came to term. Miscarriages were to be investigated and illegal abortions prosecuted, resulting in prison terms of one year for the women concerned and up to five years for doctors and other medical personnel performing the procedure. Doctors and nurses involved in gynecology came under increasing pressure, especially after 1985, when “demographic command units” were set up to ensure that all women were gynecologically examined at their place of work. These units not only monitored pregnancies and ensured deliveries but also investigated childless women and couples, asked detailed questions about their sex lives and the general health of their reproductive systems, and recommended treatment for infertility”
http://countrystudies.us/romania/37.htm
You can try to enact laws against abortion all you want, but you can’t prevent them without the disgusting and draconian measures described above – instituting forced pregnancy tests, forced invasive procedures, and forced police monitoring to make sure women don’t abort. Last time I checked this was called slavery and there are laws aplenty preventing any such things, as you well know and wouldn’t dare oppose.
You can try to make an abortion a crime, but you’ll only be increasing taxes to pay for the ridiculous and unconscionable investigations into women’s and doctor’s trash cans (after HIPPA laws were already violated to supply probable cause), and increasing tax money to pay for the ensuing prosecutions and defenses, and prisons to incarcerate nonviolent women and doctors (smaller government? I think not). Not a single one of you argues for that OR for the incarceration of scientists and doctors involved in IVF or the destruction of non-needed frozen embryos. Not a single one of you would go into a burning building to save a tray of fertilized eggs and you wouldn’t even expect a firefighter to risk his life to do so. But an induced late period is a federal case.
And THAT is why pro-life is so silly – in a time where the US faces a shortage of doctors and other healthcare providers, you want to incarcerate them and you want ME to pay for it. You want to make a government case out of a deliberate miscarriage and spend taxpayer dollars prosecuting this stuff. Can our system afford this shenanigans during a recession and wars on? What’s next, digging through women’s garbage for excessively soiled tampons? Funerals for used sanitary pads? Maybe this is how we should go about creating jobs?
That, my friends, is why you will never succeed. Ever. Because Jane Q. Taxpayer, me, is sick of paying for court cases for noncrimes and senate bills that ignore issues that really matter like the economy and the wars in the middle east, and there is NO WORSE PR for your side than a court case where a woman who aborted is forced to take the stand in her own defense – it will never happen because there is no way to collect the evidence to prosecute without breaking the law. Even if you succeed in overturning the 4th Amendment and then HIPPA so you can rifle through women’s medical files and garbage cans for used condoms and positive pee sticks, you’ll never in a million years find a jury who will convict and any DA bringing that case will make a laughingstock of himself and can kiss his next election goodbye. NO ONE wants to discuss or be privy to what happens inside women’s underwear and it’s just embarrassing and a mockery of the justice system to make public spectacle out of it. And no one wants to sit on a jury where a woman’s medical history is suddenly subject to legal action because if her medical history is an open case, SO IS YOURS. And everyone knows it.
It won’t happen, which is why new laws against abortion in the various states keep getting slapped down, and why pro-life activists are reduced to carrying signs and playing in traffic and why you have made virtually no progress against abortion in 40 years. This is the stuff everyone else knows and why abortion is still legal.
Thus ends your law class for today. Now, get out there and go save the almost extinct rhinos. Of one species there are less than a half a dozen left – because there are 7 BILLION of us.
No, law, why don’t you go try and get accepted to a herd, if you think they’re so much more worthy of protection than we human beings are. HA.
Maybe if everyone else in the world was afflicted with such a degree of egocentrism, you might have a point, but unfortunately for you, we aren’t, and the Pro-Life movement exists because of us. You do realize that HIPPA doesn’t change the fact that people like doctors and teachers are what we call “mandated reporters”, and that regardless of privacy laws and protections, they are FORCED to report to law enforcement abuse/endangerment/suspected killing of a child, despite any privacy rights their parents might posses. Because, despite the GARGANTUAN strawman you have erected here with your talking in euphemisms of “deliberate miscarriages”, abortion IS NOT! just a miscarriage, any more than the death of a child accidentally falling into a family’s swimming pool is the same as mom holding his head under the water in the bathtub until the bubbles stop. A gestating human being is a minor child, and the biological child of the pregnant woman and her partner. Doctors and teachers have obligations to them over their parents, and that’s the same way it is for born children, too.
Abortion isn’t just something that happens to a mother’s body. It is a forced and willful killing of her child’s body. We are not talking about forcing women to prove that they are or are not pregnant, but that once it has been determined that a woman IS pregnant, nothing to do with her body, but HER CHILD’S BODY has protection under the law, which makes all your ranting and raving about unlawful search and seizure, along with your wild slavery tangent, absolutely moot.
I mean, it’s not as though we have patrols bursting down the doors of every home to make certain there are no children inside, do we? Yet we still have child protective services though, for when we know for a fact a child IS in the household and that child IS or HAS BEEN victimized. So, once again, your paranoid fantasy is just that.
Law might be your strong suit, but apparently science and particularly biology, is not. Oh, and also common sense.
Law:
I am sorry my friend but you have it all wrong. Normally I do not dignify the crude rantings of a misguided soul with a response but fortunately for you I will make an exception.
We prolifers do not want to impinge on your quality of life in any way (which seems to be the essence of your argumet). All we want is the what humans have always wanted: the right to life, liberty, and the purusit of happiness. Why do you feel that you can deny the right to life to innocent unborn babies? It is the ultimate hypocrisy for you to accept the gift of life for yourself but deny it to others.
Who appointed the women who carry these babies in their wombs as judge and jury, able to make life and death determinations for another human being? Please don’t waste your time attempting to answer this because I have heard the empty platitudes a thousand times or more.
Instead, do yourself and society a favor and go educate yourself in classical philosophy and then come back as the prolife convert that you will most certainly become.
law,
Get your facts straight on Ceasescu. His was not any kind of pro life conviction, he was a deranged dictator with the dream of creating little robots to populate his future fiefdom. Women were to have a minimum of 5 children, then they could have all the abortions they wanted. The orphanages were to be filled with his future minions. He also forced austerity, cold, and hunger on his citizenry. One woman said she in fact wanted more children but life was so hopeless and depressing, getting a bottle of milk meant a trip to the black market, that she and women were forced into illegal abortion. Many “orphans” were dumped into institutions that could only be called hellholes not because parents didn’t want them but because they had no other choice. The parents and the children they kept at home lived no better than the children in the orphanages.
This would be comparable to President Roosevelt decreeing during the height of the Great Depression that every American woman, no matter how desperate her circumstances, must bear a minimum of 5 children. We likely would have seen what we witnessed in Romania.
Also, even when anti abortion laws in the US were at their strictest, no one ever advocated for forced childbirth or examinations of women. Good grief birth control is as old as the human race and I’m sure its no accident that my grandmother and her sisters limited themselves to two children each during the Great Depression.
I find it ironic that those who scream “privacy” also want the taxpayers to fund abortion.
They want the taxpayers to fund birth control. They proudly advertise their abortions, with Planned Parenthood advertising “I Had An Abortion” tee-shirts. I see no reason why the taxpayer should any more pay for abortion and birth control, than they should pay for cosmetic surgery and nutritional supplements.
So dispense with the scare tactics law, you’re only recycling the tiresome trash abortion advocates have spewed for years.
As for animals going extinct, animals have become extinct, and new species found, since the dinosaurs.
xalisae: I find it an ironic twist that you want to talk about erecting a strawman and then on the other side of your face talk about doctors being mandated reporters of sex crimes. I wasn’t talking about sex crimes. I was talking about abortions, and it is a violation of HIPPA laws for a doctor to report anything about an adult woman’s pregnancy to anyone without express permission, it is illegal for the government to ask for that information, and a violation of HIPPA laws for said doctor to report anything about a minor’s pregnancy to anyone other than her parents or the police for the purposes of protecting said minor, not protecting said minor’s pregnancy. In plain english, YOU don’t have the right to know about anyone’s pregnancy but yours and the government doesn’t have the right to know about it either save for if the pregnancy came about as the result of a crime against a minor. But the problem you face is that the existence of a pregnancy in a minor is not enough evidence to prosecute a sex crime.
Now I know you’ve all been working so hard on the state’s abortion laws to keep minors from aborting, hoping that their parents would legally lock them up so they can’t abort, but you can’t do that to adult women and most people are wising up to the fact that minors are actual citizens of this country entitled to adequate healthcare, which their parents cannot always be expected to provide (and ironically it’s often the religious kooks who refuse healthcare for their kids on religious grounds). Ergo you cannot legally deny health services, surgeries, scrapes, antibiotics, or any other form of health care to a minor just because they are a minor. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/4/gr030404.html
Say what you will about “unborn children” and all that other silliness but the law has never protected fertilized eggs, never will, they are manipulated into existence all the time by science and disposed of with equal capriciousness. And I think I’ve been more than clear on the reasons why. Not a single person here would sacrifice their lives for a tray of frozen zygotes, and no one in this country has ever been, nor ever will be, tried for capital murder for inducing an abortion either medically or surgically, and the fact that no one here would ever argue in favor of such a thing means even you guys know the difference. None of you would even want to see either yourselves or a police investigator digging through a woman’s bathroom trash or sniffing her underwear….do you???
Jerry, “Why do you feel that you can deny the right to life to innocent unborn babies? It is the ultimate hypocrisy for you to accept the gift of life for yourself but deny it to others.”
Your soundbytes are cute but carry no legal significance. There is nothing embodied in our law at any time anywhere that indicates any woman anywhere at any time should be mandated to carry a pregnancy to term or to be forced to incubate, regardless of whatever terms you want to call it, because laws otherwise are unconscionable. The government does not have the power to compel women that way and it doesn’t have the power to punish them, either. And it never will. No women must, by force of law, carry another person at great personal risk and great personal permanent health impact even if that person is as grown as John Lovitz. And that’s exactly what you would ask the law to do – lock up women, use the power of law to force them to sacrifice their bodies in ways they might not want to for a zygote you yourself wouldn’t make even the most trivial sacrifice for, and prosecute them at great expense of both time and money them if they don’t. Meanwhile real criminals would be roaming the streets while police detectives are examining women’s sanitary pads under a microscope and cuffing medical providers and rifling through their records. Cute, real cute.
Mary – it doesn’t matter what Ceaucescu’s personal belief system was (and orphanages existed because families could not afford to take care of the children they were forced to have so don’t try historical revisionism now). What matters are what laws he enacted and how they parallel to the laws that the people on this board are asking the US to enact. What do you expect the legal atmosphere to look like should abortion become criminalized which is what you seem to want? Those who are not capable of learning from history are doomed to repeat it, and the PL movement in this country, in bed with the anti-contraceptive movement as it is, apparently has no problem with women having no access to birth control and it doesn’t appear as if they are uncomfortable with women of sexual maturity being probed regularly by police to make sure their pregnancies all come to term. After all, if it’s a real baby then the law should protect it’s life even if it’s at the expense of the mother, non? Why are all these questions ones that you people shy from and hide behind your tired cardboard slogans and pictures of late miscarriages? As far as taxpayer funding goes, everyone’s taxes go to pay for things they don’t believe in, what makes you so special?
Feel free to finally be honest with yourselves and everyone else that you want the legal system to be your arm to enforce pregnant women giving birth. What should the penalty be for someone who procures an abortion or provides one? A fine? Jail time? Death row? If it’s a full human being and all, medical providers who provide abortion and women who procured them should all face the death penalty, nicht wahr? How do you go about proving your case against either a woman or a doctor in a court of law? I for one would not be interested in seeing a slideshow of soiled tampons and petri dishes full of pieces of women’s uterine linings but I suppose nothing is too lurid for a faction of people for whom sex is not a natural act but a sick obsession and for whom women are nothing more than the sum of their reproductive organs? If a woman buys RU486 online from Canada, do we ask Canada to extradite the criminal that sold it to her? How much would that cost? If it’s legal to buy online and RU486 is legal in Canada, can we get her on misuse of computer AND first degree murder? If a woman drinks herbal tea to bring her period, do we start criminalizing naturopathic doctors for selling nettles? Do we start treating herbs like we do marijuana or is it much more serious than that and the seller of said nettles should also be subject to the death penalty?
Inquiring minds want to know. Really.
Law: Why is it oaky for you and your proabort friends to enjoy life while denying it to others?
deliberate miscarriages? wha?
And my rapists were deliberately making love with me.
Thanks for the laughs, law. You are absolutely hilarious.
law,
It does indeed matter what Ceacescu’s belief system was. The fact the man was a deranged dictator doesn’t matter? Of course the orphanages were for children parents couldn’t care for, he forced austerity, hunger, cold, and hopelessness on his citizenry. Parents had no other options but to give away their children. The parents lived no better than the children in the orphanages! Don’t talk to me about historical revisionism buster, get your history straight to begin with!
I’ll give you another historical fact. When Soviet dictator Josef Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians, it wasn’t unusual for desperate Ukrainian mothers to put their starving children on outbound trains, hoping some stranger would take pity on them. When parents are forced into such desperate situations, we can’t be surprised that abortion and abandonment of children are the result.
I remember when abortion was illegal. Women were NOT denied access to birth control. No one advocated women being subjected to examinations or scrounging through their garbage. As I pointed out concerning my grandmother and her sisters. Do you think it was just dumb luck they had so few children during the Great Depression? Duhhhhh. Birth control is as old as the human race. No effort has been made to outlaw it. My mother used it during WW2 for heaven’s sake. No one is going to outlaw it now!! So please law, dispense with the recycled tiresome trash I’ve been listening to for decades.
Hey look, its you squawking about privacy so I would venture to say that you would oppose the taxpayers being expected to pay for birth control and abortion. I would also expect that you would have a problem with PP promoting tee shirts that boast “I had an abortion”. What’s worst, that they would even get some aging feminist has been like Gloria Steinem model it!
Oh and law,
I neglected to mention that Ceacescu also forced his hungry citizenry to work long hours in factories, then return to cold dark homes. All part of his plan to build his ideal society.
“Not a single person here would sacrifice their lives for a tray of frozen zygotes…”
So this is essentially the “Which would you save?” argument. I’ve never really understood the purpose of this question. I have no problem in saying that if it came down to a tray full of frozen zygotes and some born person, I’d save the born person. But so what? I’d also save a newborn over any amount of adults (that could be one adult or a thousand). Does that mean the adult has no moral worth because, if it came down to a situation where it was a newborn vs. an adult, I would save the newborn rather than the adult? Apparently, it would in your eyes.
“and no one in this country has ever been, nor ever will be, tried for capital murder for inducing an abortion either medically or surgically, and the fact that no one here would ever argue in favor of such a thing means even you guys know the difference.”
Fwiw, I’m pretty sure there have been three or so cases of a woman being prosecuted for inducing an abortion, though the charges were later dropped. Generally speaking, the woman doesn’t get charged; the abortionist does, however.
“None of you would even want to see either yourselves or a police investigator digging through a woman’s bathroom trash or sniffing her underwear….do you???”
It’s kind of funny to see someone who decries straw men set one up his/herself. Irony at it’s finest, I say.
Oh, and using Romania as an example of the ideal pro-life society is kind of like using China as the ideal pro-choice society.
The fact the man was a deranged dictator doesn’t matter?
No. What matters is what laws you are asking women of this country to adhere to; what outcomes they are expected to have to deal with if the laws are changed to reflect what YOU believe. Personally I find the undeniable parallels repugnant. Apparently you do too. I like the Who Would You Save question. It really does cast, in the appropriate light, your belief system and how it’s undeniably a bunch of hooey. When the feminists talk about the PL movement and it’s contempt for sex, women, and the underlying desire to have control over women, they can do no better than to prove it by asking the Sign Carrier On The Street that sixty four thousand dollar question. QED.
Birth control is as old as the human race. No effort has been made to outlaw it.
Trust me when I say I require no history or any other kind of lesson from you. If you ally yourself with factions whose belief system you are either to ignorant or in too much denial to admit to, it is you who has much learning to do. I’ve read more than I care to about the PL movement here and it’s entanglement with with the movement to outlaw birth control (It’s an abortifacient, don’t you know) and the Catholic church’s stance on said birth control and the power they wield within the movement. What HASN’T happened here yet, IS NO THANKS TO YOU. It is in spite of you that women have the freedoms and health access that they do.
The question remains, and will always remain, until the PL movement finally comes clean about what it is they really want – what you expect the legal system to do about abortions? If you change the laws, how to you expect to enforce them, if at all?
Answer that question honestly and you’ll understand, finally, why you will NEVER, EVER overturn Roe or outlaw abortions. Ever. You will finally understand that the rational citizenry of a free nation finds that fining, incarcerating, or killing doctors and women to be completely and utterly repellent.
law,
Do you have some problem with reading comprehension or like so many other abortion advocates, do you not see the forest for the trees?
I recall that even after Ceascescu was toppled, American abortion advocates, well fed and from the comfort of their heated homes, were wailing about the lack of birth control and illegal abortion Romanian women were subjected to. Not the brutality, hunger, overwork, terror,and deprivation they really endured. Uhhh folks, if these women didn’t live under a deranged dictator determined to produce a lot of minions for his future imaginary fiefdom, then maybe they would have had access to birth control, as well as enough to eat and the ability to provide their children with decent lives, and not been forced into illegal abortion and abandoning their children to hellholes. Understand now law??
Trust me when I say you desperately need to review a little history. The Catholic hierarchy was deliberately singled out by abortion advocates as a common enemy against which abortion advocates could rally. The original NARAL was the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. One of its founders, Bernard Nathanson, was only one of the members determined to stop at nothing, literally, to make abortion legal. And yes that included lies and scare tactics, as well as targeting the Catholic Church. That’s what I mean law, your argument is recycled. The same tiresome scare tactics that have been recyled time and again. Read Nathanson’s book “Aborting America” and get a real history lesson.
Each state made their own laws. Exceptions were made for women who’s lives were in danger, for rape, incest, etc. Did this stop abortion? NO. Do laws against murder and rape stop these crimes? NO. Is it fair that some states have capital punishment and others do not?? How about laws against drunk driving? Should drunk drivers who kill someone be executed for capital murder? In some societies they are. Lots of gray areas law.
Another history lesson law, women were not incarcerated, only doctors who performed the abortions, assuming they were caught. As far as I know there were no executions nor was this advocated. This forced doctors to be more careful and discreet, so thus you didn’t see the ratholes that openly function now, with the full blessing of the law, that mutilate, maim, and kill women. Jill has had accounts of these ratholes on her blog, I believe the latest was some “clinic” that hadn’t been inspected in 15 years. I bet the kennel you would put your pet dog in would have to meet higher standards.
Oh and did you realize most illegal abortions were done in doctor’s offices and the death rate had been steadily declining for years prior to Roe, thanks to better sterile technique, IV and blood therapy, and antibiotics? NARAL was well aware of this though it didn’t stop them from lying to the American public that women were dying by the thousands, a number they literally made up.
So law, isn’t it ironic that illegal abortion might well have been far safer than legal abortion?
Its like my brother, a former police officer told me: Criminals are some of the safest people on the planet to share the road with. When you’re driving a stolen car or have a dead body in the trunk, you certainly don’t want to attract the attention of law enforcement.
So please take a deep breath and relax. Overturning Roe v Wade would just send the issue back to the states to be decided by the people through their elected representatives. The only thing Roe v Wade did was deprive the American people of the right to speak through their elected representatives. Legal scholars have even questioned the right of the SCOTUS to act in such a manner.
Birth control is here to stay. Yes some people may oppose it. So what? People support and oppose a lot of things. Oh and please read Nathanson’s book “Aborting America”. It will give you a desperately needed history lesson, explain your phobia concerning the Catholic Church, and hopefully put an end to your recycled arguments.
Arguing with religious crazies is never profitable. Anyone who believes that some invisible fairy directs their llives is certifiable – unless they call it “god” of course.
This same craziness is demonstrated by thinking that humans are worth inherently “more” than any other creature on the planet – or at least that humans are not subject to the laws of nature.
The people on this page are working towards the population crash of humanity that WILL come. Not from abortions, but from simple exhaustion of resources due to massive overpopulation.
Pismo,
Another argument that is likely older than you are. I’ve been hearing about the impending doom of “overpopulation” for at least 45 years, give or take. Are you aware that we are all supposed to have been exinct by now? Looks like we’re behind schedule.
This “Overpopulation” scare also gets recycled and dredged up as needed every now and then.
I’ve found that arguing with environmental “crazies” about as worthwhile as arguing with religious ones.
Pismo–wow. How do you even get out of bed in the morning? Are you this chipper all the time?
“Not from abortions, but from simple exhaustion of resources due to massive overpopulation.”
Then do us a favor and stop breathing our air.
Let’s keep up the good fight and do all that we can. This battle is winnable despite what some will tell you.
Raisehell Maddcoww, the progressvie bovine who chews her cud with her mind closed and her cavernous muzzle wide open.
She continuously bloviates out both sides of her gaping embrasure while intermittently licking her loosed lips with her bifurcated lengua.
…I saw a woman seated on a scarlet beast…
…the great harlot (idolatress) who is seated on many waters, …
[She] with whom the rulers of the earth have joined in prostitution (idolatry) and with the wine of whose immorality (idolatry) the inhabitants of the earth have become intoxicated.
I also saw that the woman was drunk, [drunk] with the blood of the saints (God’s people) and the blood of the martyrs [who witnessed] for Jesus…
The woman was robed in purple and scarlet and bedecked with gold, precious stones, and pearls, [and she was] holding in her hand a golden cup full of the accursed offenses and the filth of her lewdness and vice.
And on her forehead there was inscribed a name of mystery [with a secret symbolic meaning]: …the mother of prostitutes (idolatresses) and of the filth and atrocities and abominations of the earth.
Yeh, Pismo, I do believe I’m inherently “more” than a fly. Guess I’m a religious zealot, huh?
“Answer that question honestly and you’ll understand, finally, why you will NEVER, EVER overturn Roe or outlaw abortions. Ever. ”
I’m not a betting man, but this is one bet (if it were one) I’d take in a heartbeat.
I find it an ironic twist that you want to talk about erecting a strawman and then on the other side of your face talk about doctors being mandated reporters of sex crimes. I wasn’t talking about sex crimes. I was talking about abortions,
And I find it an ironic twist that you know what the word “ironic” means, given that you failed to grasp the argument I made even on the most basic of levels, and did nothing but construct a new and even larger strawman then proceeded to knock it down all while avoiding what I was talking about entirely.
I wasn’t talking about sex crimes. I was talking about abuse, suspected abuse, or an attempt to abuse a minor child. Oh, I’m sorry, did you not hear the news? Gestating human beings have finally been recognized as minor children for at least one purpose by law in one state already! Sorry to burst your little bubble of crazy, but you ARE NOT the final authority on laws, and the planks of the battering ram we’re building to topple Roe have already been laid.
Mary – no, I don’t read your posts for content. Nothing you say has been compelling since before the 70’s and it’s not compelling now. Really all it is is you slapping your hands over your eyes and going “NOOOO! There are no parallels between MY PL movement and the anti-abortion anti-contraceptive dictator!” Your only and best response to the fact that Ceaucescu did what you guys really want is to deny that he did what you really want or that he did it for all the wrong reasons. You HAVE to say “We would NEVER advocate for enacting draconian laws to make sure women stay pregnant and that the only person who would pay the price (what price, one asks?) for abortions would be the healthcare providers.” You must think everyone is stupid. (Add a liberal sprinkling of “it’s a baybeeee” soundbytes and voila.)
But we’re not. No one believes you and the American people have thus far refused to let you insult their intelligence and that’s even after you’ve done your level best to stack the SCOTUS with judges you think will rule in your favor and never do (probably because they went to college but I won’t go there today). One wonders what it is you really want, if it’s not SOME law or body of laws or mass overturning of existing laws that ultimately requires pregnant women to stay that way. What would such laws look like? How do you plan on enforcing them? How many other laws, such as HIPAA (and enacting the draconian tying of doctor’s hands by threat of litigation) have to be changed? And how much is this going to cost me? Might we make sure if a woman’s pee stick comes up positive that it’s illegal for her to travel to a foreign country in flagrant violation of the Constitution? Might we make sure she doesn’t have access to anything resembling hanger wire? Maybe pregnant women’s homes must be pregnant-woman-proofed to remove anything that resembles an object that can be used to induce a miscarriage. Now there’s job creation at it’s finest!
If a pregnancy is a BAYBEE, shouldn’t abortion providers be charged with first degree murder and sentenced to death or at least LWOP? Yes or no.
Now, I am sure there are plenty of people willing to sit a jury on a case of a doctor who performs routine abortions, plenty of DAs willing to bring charges, plenty of investigators willing to break the law to fulfill probable cause. I mean, I for one can’t wait to hear the lurid details of all of a doctor’s cases (HIPAA? What HIPAA?) and send him to the slam. After all we have SO many healthcare providers we can afford to take them out of circulation and stick them in the legal system at enormous expense to the taxpayers, thus ensuring rich women will go to Canada, Mexico, or Europe for their abortions (or just take the nearest available cruise to international waters) and healthcare costs for the poor rise to take care of postpartum poor women while they helplessly contribute more homeless children to the system. (Do “crisis pregnancy centers” do referrals for pelvic floor surgery and postpartum sexual counselling for women whose sex lives have been transformed by childbirth? Just asking. I saw some people here talking about how abortion affects people’s relationships, not that I believe anyone here cares about women’s relationships, but I kinda have to wonder what rocks everyone here lives under that they’ve missed the huge body of sociological research that shows having a baby is like dropping a grenade into one’s marriage/relationship and that childbirth isn’t exactly easy on the old sex organs – in fact I do believe I read that having a baby is a good way to get divorced. Oh well, I do digress, don’t I?)
Roe is still standing despite 40+ years of the PL movement taking their best shots at it, because once a right is ensconced in the law and in society, good bloody luck taking it away. The American people are not idiots and know exactly what it is the PL movement wants, what a PL society would look like, and the answer is so far a resounding NO. We’ve been able to think ahead far enough to know what the affects changing the laws have. It’s disgusting. Women are not property anymore and never will be again and conservative slut-shamers who have a deathly fear of sex who think everyone besides them must be desperately unhappy (especially if they have a sex life and don’t spend hours on end thinking about diseases of the sexual tract) and that they have the answer to happiness (and somehow it’s always an unwanted pregnancy) do not speak for anyone. No one wants to be like you and no one wants to live in your world. We, unlike you, can see it from the outside and it’s a nightmare. This site and the PL movement is completely one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen. Five minutes of thought about it and it’s impossible to miss how patently absurd it is. I daresay it makes a Star Trek convention look like the Harvard Law Review.
Pismo – indeed. There is an amazing video on Youtube about the Australian mouse plague and what happens when mouse populations reach their zenith and they are forced to resort to eating each other before mass dieoff.
I for one don’t have a lot of patience for the ignorance it takes to say “That will never happen.” Anyone who believes they are above animals is ignorant of biology, a narcissist, and doesn’t understand the first thing about the ecosystem and how each animal, importantly, fits into it. You can believe you are “better than a fly” all you want, but flies are just as necessary to the survival of this ecosystem as any other animal. Without them, you wouldn’t even be here.
BTW, here’s a video of PLers being asked what should happen to women who procure illegal abortions. It seems none of them really thought this whole thing out very well. Which is why I came here. LMAO!
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/65243/detail/
Oh, law. You can huff and you can puff. But the tide is turning, and women of your generation will die off, only to be replaced by your younger sisters, who can look at their bodies, the pictures, and the evidence and see that abortion is murder and it is wrong.
You’re a blowhard, and all you’ve got is words and a penchant for bullying. Shoo.
Courtnay – is that a permutation of “the Quiverfull movement” wanting to outbreed everyone? Sort of reminiscent of the “why haven’t gay people gone extinct yet, they can’t breed” argument. LOL!!!! You guys are hilarious.
My generation’s viewpoints are not genetic and people’s rights will be fine as long as there are institutions of higher learning. Anyone with a basic education won’t be swayed by your photos of late miscarriages, but you only think they will because you think everyone is stupid.
The tide is not turning, jurisprudence is not and will never be on your side, and should the US somehow become another draconian permutation of Romania, women will just start traveling. :)
You can’t win. And that is why I came here – just to let you know that you can’t win.
Not a permutation, law. It’s already happening. This is what this article is all about. Even your high priestess of abortion rights, Rachel Maddow, gets it. We are winning. You sound like a scared child with a thesaurus. Now, really, shoo.
Really, winning what? What is it you think you’ve managed to win so far? Last time I checked, women were still having abortions pretty much all the time. Even if you somehow managed to change or enact some laws (rofl), they’ll still have abortions all the time.
Roe is still standing despite 40+ years of the PL movement taking their best shots at it, because once a right is ensconced in the law and in society, good bloody luck taking it away.
You mean a right, like, say… Slavery? Oh, and Roe v. Wade is 39 years old. Just for the sake of accuracy.
The American people are not idiots and know exactly what it is the PL movement wants, what a PL society would look like, and the answer is so far a resounding NO. We’ve been able to think ahead far enough to know what the affects changing the laws have. It’s disgusting. Women are not property anymore and never will be again and conservative slut-shamers who have a deathly fear of sex who think everyone besides them must be desperately unhappy (especially if they have a sex life and don’t spend hours on end thinking about diseases of the sexual tract) and that they have the answer to happiness (and somehow it’s always an unwanted pregnancy) do not speak for anyone. No one wants to be like you and no one wants to live in your world. We, unlike you, can see it from the outside and it’s a nightmare. This site and the PL movement is completely one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen. Five minutes of thought about it and it’s impossible to miss how patently absurd it is. I daresay it makes a Star Trek convention look like the Harvard Law Review.
Who is this “we” you speak of? And fwiw, men and women tend to hold equal views of abortion, though where differences are found, women tend to be less approving of abortion than are men. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut… Who cares about facts, right?
Oh, and “no one (else)” is kind of harsh, since I do believe that would mean that there is only one pro-lifer in world. Something we all know to be untrue.
law, 1:57PM
Apparently you do have a problem with reading comprehension. Or is it just facts that confuse you? I can’t imagine why you have such a problem understanding how a deranged dictator can do some very deranged and nasty things that would not be tolerated in any other society.
Let me say this a little more simply. Roe v Wade’s downfall would only send the abortion issue back to the states where the people, speaking through their elected representatives, would make laws concerning abortion. Zeus will not be sending any draconian measures on a thunderbolt from Mt. Olympus. If as you say most Americans don’t want to change things, then you don’t have any need for concern, right?
Now, doesn’t that take a big load off your shoulders?
I thought it would.
Hi Some Guy,
Great point about slavery. It was what, a couple of centuries? And of course everyone just “knew” freed black slaves would be nothing but helpless children unable to fend for themselves. They weren’t quite human. They were inferior. A great service was done to Africans by enslaving them. Slaves were really very happy. Hey, you don’t like slavery, then don’t buy one!
Indeed we can justify anything, and speaking of recycling, don’t some of these arguments sound eerily familiar?
“My generation’s viewpoints are not genetic and people’s rights will be fine as long as there are institutions of higher learning. Anyone with a basic education won’t be swayed by your photos of late miscarriages, but you only think they will because you think everyone is stupid.”
Faulty cause and effect. It should be pointed out that going to college doesn’t make one more liberal in their attitudes regarding abortion. Rather, what usually happen is that those who tend to hold positive views of abortion are more apt to attend college than those who hold negative views of abortion. Anyway, education is a weaking predictor of abortion attitudes. But you don’t have to take my word for it (which you won’t, anyway).
1.) [T]he decline in the sizes of the education and Catholic religion unstandardized slopes between the first and last time periods, while not statistically significant, nevertheless is consistent with the drop in their respective Betas and suggestive of a weakening association between these background factors and abortion attitudes.
2.) If you were to look at this, you’d notice an interesting pattern. Since 1975, abortion attitudes by education have converged some, meaning they’ve become more similar, due to the top group (college graduates) becoming less supportive and the bottom group (HS or less) has become more supportive.
3.) A consistent positive relationship between age and conservatism was found in the past (Sullins, 1999), however, recent studies show age becoming less of a predictor of abortion attitudes. As young people are increasingly opposing abortion, supporters are aging yet not changing their attitudes (Fine, 2006; Scott, 1998). Indeed, birth cohort appears to be a more consistent predictor of abortion attitudes than age (Scott, 1998). Further, when other factors are controlled, older people appear to have more positive attitudes toward abortion than younger people (Strickler and Danigelis, 2002).
So, really. I don’t know what you’re banking on.
“law” reminds me of some juvenile little lawyer-in-training I used to see stomping around Twitter, talking about how her abortion freed up funds to spend $400 on high heels and take a trip with her husband(?) to Disneyworld. Because I’m sure going to a resort intended for children as a childless adult couple didn’t seem weird to everyone around them. I don’t know…maybe she brought her dead kid in a jar or something. I’m sure dead children love Tomorrow Land. Nothing to strengthen a relationship like killing your child then going to visit a child-centric theme park.
Aaaaaand, I notice you have no response to the real, ACTUAL law in Utah declaring gestating human beings to be the minor children that they are. Figured as much. Toodles! Please wipe the snot from your nose after you’re done with your tantrum, little girl. ^_^
“You mean a right, like, say… Slavery? Oh, and Roe v. Wade is 39 years old. Just for the sake of accuracy.”
You do realize how long it takes a case to go to the SCOTUS, don’t you? PL activism started long before the decision in the case came down thus well over 40 years would be more accurate. Nice try though.
As far as slavery, that won’t come back either, though I know that just breaks your poor little heart. Sorry.
“though where differences are found, women tend to be less approving of abortion than are men”
And? It doesn’t matter how many people want something or believe something. Regardless if 99% of people in this country wanted women and abortion doctors tossed in the hoosegow, it wouldn’t happen. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. Your feelings and beliefs are irrelevant. Ain’t that great?! :D That’s why you have to resort to carrying signs and getting run over in the driveways of Planned Parenthood, it’s the only real power you have. Remember, if you’re going to flog yourself with a rosary, it should at least leave a mark!
Mary – I don’t have a problem with reading comprehension, it’s just that what you have to say has absolutely no bearing on anything of any importance whatsoever. I mean, I know that just kills you inside and everything, but it’s true.
“Let me say this a little more simply. Roe v Wade’s downfall would only send the abortion issue back to the states where the people, speaking through their elected representatives, would make laws concerning abortion”
Really? What laws are those? Fetal personhood you can’t get passed now even though you’ve tried – in MISSISSIPPI no less where if it was going to pass anywhere that would be the place?? ROFL! And how do you plan on enforcing these laws? What shall be their penalty? How much shall we pay police to arrest women and doctors? How much should we spend on their public defense and on the ensuing investigations in violation of HIPAA laws? Inquiring minds really want to know, but I guess since you can’t tell there’s no difference between six of one and a half dozen of the other, I guess I won’t expect an answer – and I won’t expect an answer to why it’s so important to you to overturn Roe if you yourself admit that it won’t really make a lick of difference.
““law” reminds me of some juvenile little lawyer-in-training”
You know, it would be really nice to see people have some respect for the law these days. Yes, YOU. PL activists have had to be served multiple smackdowns in various courts for violating people’s rights, and they haven’t the foggiest clue what they are asking the system of American jurisprudence to do. Fortunately everyone else does. And that’s why the only success you have is to stand in a corral across the street from women’s clinics with signs depicting late miscarriages and singing kumbayah.
If a pro-abortion troll throws a tantrum in the forest and there’s no one listening anymore, is he still irrelevant?
Water off a duck’s back, my friend, keep flogging away with those rosaries! It doesn’t matter how insulting you think you can be – which, by the way, has always been a really peruasive tactic. I thought this was a board of God people. Let me rush right out immediately and convert so I can become as hateful as you.
law,
I’m not arguing overturning Roe won’t make a lick of difference, I’m arguing that if the American people support your point of view, you don’t have anything to be concerned about if Roe is overturned, right? That…means…that…if ..the..people…speaking….through..representatives..that..they..have.. elected…do..not..want..certain..laws..enacted…they..won’t..be…enacted.
Its very tiresome to have to repeat again and again so I hope you now comprehend this very simple and basic fact. You’re really working yourself into a lather over nothing.
Hmmm… Apparently this site didn’t like my last post because it didn’t post it. I guess it was all those cites.
“You do realize how long it takes a case to go to the SCOTUS, don’t you?”
What does that have to do with anything, especially since the slavery issue wasn’t solved by the courts.
“PL activism started long before the decision in the case came down thus well over 40 years would be more accurate. Nice try though.”
You said, and I quote, “Roe is still standing despite 40+ years of the PL movement taking their best shots at it“. Roe v. Wade came down on January 22, 1973. It is exactly 39 years and 6 days old. You cannot fight something for 40+ years that has only existed for just over 39 years. I’m guessing you’re not one of those educated people with a college degree.
So, yeah. Nice try.
(Not really.)
“As far as slavery, that won’t come back either, though I know that just breaks your poor little heart. Sorry.”
Well, seeing as how I’m Black, I’m going to have to say that I don’t share a tear at the thought of slavery coming back. Of course, the color of my skin doesn’t really matter, as I wouldn’t shed a tear regardless of my race.
And? It doesn’t matter how many people want something or believe something.
Apparently it does, since 99% of pro-choicers arguments usually boil down to how the state should not be coopted by religious views/how everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
“Regardless if 99% of people in this country wanted women and abortion doctors tossed in the hoosegow, it wouldn’t happen.”
I feel confident in saying that it, indeed, would happen.
That’s what I’m trying to tell you. Your feelings and beliefs are irrelevant. Ain’t that great?!
So, I’m curious. When are my feelings and beliefs not irrelevant?
That’s why you have to resort to carrying signs and getting run over in the driveways of Planned Parenthood, it’s the only real power you have.
So how did you come to such a conclusion?
“Remember, if you’re going to flog yourself with a rosary, it should at least leave a mark!”
I’m not Catholic and, to be fair, am barely even Christian.
“I’m not arguing overturning Roe won’t make a lick of difference”
The fact is, you think it will. You want to see as many states who will have the power to prosecute people (economy? What economy?) regardless of the fact that the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws. What I’m trying to get you to understand, but you apparently seem impervious to logic, is that changing all the laws in the United States will not stop women from procuring abortions. You may as well be arguing to overturn Lawrence v. Texas.
Hi Courtnay 5:22PM
Good point. My experience with confused, brain damaged, and senile people has taught me that disagreeing with them or presenting facts, however simple, often generates even more confusion and lashing out in anger.
law,
Kindly refer to my 5:50PM post to Courtnay.
*sigh*
“Roe v. Wade came down on January 22, 1973. It is exactly 39 years and 6 days old. You cannot fight something for 40+ years that has only existed for just over 39 years.
Roe reached the SCOTUS on appeal in 1970. Arguments started at the end of 1971. It existed as a case long before 1973. It was delayed so that other cases that would affect its outcome could be decided first. Perhaps you think court cases arise when everyone agrees?
I feel confident in saying that it, indeed, would happen.
Then you apparently don’t know much about the law. It doesn’t matter what you want, it matters what the law says. If you think that the PL movement hasn’t succeeded simply because they don’t have enough of a majority, you’re even dumber than your ignorance on the history of the Roe case. Republicans and so-called PLers have been in power since the 70s quite enough to change the face of the laws – and haven’t. You had a PL president from 2000 – 2008 and he couldn’t get it done. Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were both supposedly PL and they didn’t get it done. There was a Republican majority in the senate from ’81 – ’87 and from ’95 – ’01 and from ’05 – ’09 and you couldn’t get it done then either.
So, I’m curious. When are my feelings and beliefs not irrelevant?
Pretty much never.
So how did you come to such a conclusion?
Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have them all the time. Of all the time and opportunity the PL movement has had to change this, it hasn’t changed at all.
Oh, damn, I better get rid of my fly swatter then. law, I’m just wondering if your dog (that is, if you have one) and a stranger (a human, of course) were both drowning, who would you save first? Just curious.
Some Guy, you and I have a conscience. We also know that right and wrong sometimes exist outside the law. To see the wrongness of abortion, you would have to have a heart. Law has neither a conscience nor a heart, so she will never get our passion to save the unborn. She doesn’t want to, and she probably can’t. Remember, there were Southerners who denied Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and truly believed that the world could never and would never exist without slavery. But you and I are also patient, and we can recognize a scared obloviator when sh’e backed into a corner. She thought she was coming here to lecture us poor, Walmart shopping rubes who got hoodwinked by George Bush TWICE. But the joke is on her, because the only hoodwinking going on here is folks of her ilk who bought the lie that abortion means liberation.
Keep the faith.
Roe reached the SCOTUS on appeal in 1970. Arguments started at the end of 1971. It existed as a case long before 1973. It was delayed so that other cases that would affect its outcome could be decided first. Perhaps you think court cases arise when everyone agrees?
So pro-lifers were fighting against a case that had yet to be decided? I don’t think so. Continue your backtracking/grasping of straws.
“Then you apparently don’t know much about the law. It doesn’t matter what you want, it matters what the law says.”
You do realize that laws are not formed absent societal opinion, correct? If not, then there you go.
“If you think that the PL movement hasn’t succeeded simply because they don’t have enough of a majority, you’re even dumber than your ignorance on the history of the Roe case. Republicans and so-called PLers have been in power since the 70s quite enough to change the face of the laws – and haven’t. You had a PL president from 2000 – 2008 and he couldn’t get it done. Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were both supposedly PL and they didn’t get it done. There was a Republican majority in the senate from ’81 – ’87 and from ’95 – ’01 and from ’05 – ’09 and you couldn’t get it done then either.”
…Yeah.
There’s only one way to override Roe v. Wade without getting the ruling reversed, and that is through a Constitutional amendment. To do that, you need either (a) 2/3rds of the House, 2/3rds of the Senate and 3/4ths of the states to approve said amendment or (b) have a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3rds of the state legislatures and have the amendment approved by 3/4ths of the states. Even if Republicans had a supermajority in both the House and the Senate, they wouldn’t have been able to pass a constitutional amendment because there are at least ten states I can think of right off the bat which would refuse to ratify the amendment.
“Pretty much never.”
So when do your opinions and feelings matter?
“Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have them all the time. Of all the time and opportunity the PL movement has had to change this, it hasn’t changed at all.”
…Yeah.
Your name is a misnomer, because you obviously aren’t very up-to-date with the law and how it works. Pro-lifers can only do what Roe v. Wade and its subsequent cases allow it to do, though pro-lifers have done a good job at chipping away at Roe v. Wade, getting legislation passed which at one point would have been disallowed and changing people’s opinion of abortion, in general.
So pro-lifers were fighting against a case that had yet to be decided? I don’t think so.
NRLC was formed in 1968. Stop thinking before you hurt yourself.
You do realize that laws are not formed absent societal opinion, correct?
Laws are not formed on social opinion. The only thing that happens to affect the law based on social opinion is an election of a government leader. State laws are formed on the basis of state Constitutions and are interpreted by supreme courts.
There’s only one way to override Roe v. Wade without getting the ruling reversed, and that is through a Constitutional amendment.
And I am sure a ‘pro-life constitutional amendment” will be wildly popular during a recession, BTW. It’d be funny if y’all held your breath on that. I enjoy seeing “conservative” policymakers introduce social policy bills during times like this, where they make utter asses of themselves.
Your name is a misnomer, because you obviously aren’t very up-to-date with the law and how it works.
My friend, if I found I were pregnant needed an abortion, I could have one today. Nothing you or anyone else does or says can stop me and I can sue you if you try. And that is the law. Perhaps there is something else other than that you think I need to know, although I am fairly certain that the current laws and current history have done nothing to affirm your point of view. Why is that if it makes so much sense?
But law, to have an abortion, you would have to find someone willing to have sex with you.
She thought she was coming here to lecture us poor, Walmart shopping rubes who got hoodwinked by George Bush TWICE.
It wasn’t just him, Courtneigh. Why do you guys CONTINUALLY get “hoodwinked” time and time again? Every time there is a PL president or a PL senate majority, women still go out and get abortions and the DOJ brings lawsuits against PL rodeo clowns who violate their rights to do so. It’s really embarrassing for you. I mean really! Like, it makes me cringe for you.
But the joke is on her, because the only hoodwinking going on here is folks of her ilk who bought the lie that abortion means liberation.
Actually what abortion means is that women like myself don’t have to go through pregnancy, labor, and childbirth if we find the idea of doing so repellent. Anything else is a human rights violation. You couldn’t inflict pregnancy and childbirth on the detainees at Guantanamo even if it were possible, the UN wouldn’t allow it, as article 5 of the Declaration of Human Rights condemns torture. Women do not have to go through that torture, disfigurement, permanent scarring of their bodies, and risk of death anymore. Among other things, this is a huge recognition of women as human beings.
“But law, to have an abortion, you would have to find someone willing to have sex with you.”
I suppose if it were up to you I’d be locked in my closet to preclude having a sex life as a possibility, but rest assured my sex life and my relationships, like my pregnancies and other health history, are none of your effing business. My freedoms and freedom to associate have been affirmed time and time again in the law. Get over it already.
Though I certainly find it says much about you that other people’s sexual activity should be a topic of conversation for you. How utterly embarrassing for you.
“NRLC was formed in 1968. Stop thinking before you hurt yourself.”
And yet, that has nothing to do with the ability to fight against a case that has yet to be decided. “Laws are not formed on social opinion.”
Untrue. To provide just one example, I live in Florida. In Florida, the law says gay marriage is banned. Why? Because, a few years back, the state amended the Florida Constitution to bar gay marriage via referendum.
“The only thing that happens to affect the law based on social opinion is an election of a government leader.”
Again, untrue.
“State laws are formed on the basis of state Constitutions and are interpreted by supreme courts.”
Who influences a state’s constitution?
“And I am sure a ‘pro-life constitutional amendment” will be wildly popular during a recession, BTW. It’d be funny if y’all held your breath on that. I enjoy seeing “conservative” policymakers introduce social policy bills during times like this, where they make utter asses of themselves.”
Weird. I’ve seen “liberal” policymakers introducing social policy bills (or tackling social issues) during this recession and yet they weren’t accused of making fools of themselves*.
My friend, if I found I were pregnant needed an abortion, I could have one today. Nothing you or anyone else does or says can stop me and I can sue you if you try. And that is the law. Perhaps there is something else other than that you think I need to know, although I am fairly certain that the current laws and current history have done nothing to affirm your point of view. Why is that if it makes so much sense?
So did you really not read what I wrote out? It’s hard to imagine that you did, given your response.
“But law, to have an abortion, you would have to find someone willing to have sex with you.”
To be fair, anyone can find someone willing to sleep with them. It’s not a monumental task by any stretch of the imagination.
(*Well, Boehner did play the “They-should-be-focusing-on-jobs!” card.)
“And yet, that has nothing to do with the ability to fight against a case that has yet to be decided.”
If you want to keep telling yourself that Roe happened in a vacuum and arose out of absolutely nowhere, that’s fine, but I assure you this is the funniest thing I’ve seen all week.
“In Florida, the law says gay marriage is banned. Why? Because, a few years back, the state amended the Florida Constitution to bar gay marriage via referendum…Who influences a state’s constitution?”
It depends. Ultimately it is under the court’s oversight. There have been plenty of cases where popular referendums are merely ignored by states (although these are usually fiscal cases).
If someone has a “social opinion” they need to follow the law for submitting a referendum and they can’t submit referendums in violation of Constitutional principles already in place (which is why FL had to change their constitution first and they can’t just make whatever changes they want to). For example you can’t institute a referendum that says being gay is illegal and to be punishable by lethal injection (ultimately changes subject to enough dispute will end up at the SCOTUS which does not rule on the basis of popular opinion), although I would be willing to bet some of you might try. BTW domestic partnerships are recognized in Broward County, Orlando, and Miami.
Weird. I’ve seen “liberal” policymakers introducing social policy bills (or tackling social issues) during this recession and yet they weren’t accused of making fools of themselves*. I’m not merely referring to social policy issues (such as healthcare). Just this week the Indiana Senate (republican, natch) passed a bill that allows teaching of creationism in public schools, which will be overturned because the SCOTUS already ruled against things like this. The Oklahoma Senate (guess which party…go ahead, guess), just this week, introduced a bill prohibiting the consumption of fetuses. There’s absurd and then there’s things like this. It’s like a Saturday Night Live game show skit, “Who’s More Ridiculous”. I don’t even have to go and compile a list, this is just stuff that is happening right now.
Whatever happened to Georgia’s Bobby Franklin’s miscarriage bill from last Febuary anyway? Maybe you think there was a popular opinion demanding that miscarriages should be a felony?
Mary:
Your discussion with “law” proves one thing: A person must first have a soul in order to have the slightest capability to comprehend reasoned arguments. Law avoids answering questions directly because there is not a cogent argument to be articulated in defense of her positions.
Law: Not only should you go back and restart your intellectual life by studying classical and western philosophy, but you may also want to take Biology 101. Unborn babies are babies whether or not you want to recognize their humanity. You confuse emotional positions with intellectual positions. Pseudo-juridical meanderings are no substitute for scholarship.
If you were a student of the law or even a student of history you would not make statements such as:
Answer that question honestly and you’ll understand, finally, why you will NEVER, EVER overturn Roe or outlaw abortions. Ever. The tide is not turning, jurisprudence is not and will never be on your side, and should the US somehow become another draconian permutation of Romania, women will just start traveling. You can’t win. And that is why I came here – just to let you know that you can’t win
You are blowing smoke and spewing nonsense, pure and simple. This little slice of history between 1973 and now is forever cemented into law? Any serious student of the law knows one thing: never say never. Apparently you do not know that rulings are OVERTURNED from time to time, rulings in which advocates of those laws were just as sure in their time as you are now.
You said you came here to let us know we cannot win. Return to school for a decade or so and come back when you have something enlightening to offer.
I don’t think law is a student of a law but a hurting post-abortive mother trying desperately to rationalize her choice.
“Unborn babies are babies whether or not you want to recognize their humanity. “
A fertilized egg is not a baby. Never will be. Even you people know that because not a single one of you would make a meaningful sacrifice for one, and you wouldn’t enforce any laws killing them.
For the sake of argument though, even if I granted you that it had the same legal standing as the president, it wouldn’t matter. What does matter is that no one should be obligated to incubate it or give birth to it.
” This little slice of history between 1973 and now is forever cemented into law? “
As I said earlier, you may as well argue to overturn Lawrence v. Texas so you can incarcerate gays.
“I don’t think law is a student of a law but a hurting post-abortive mother trying desperately to rationalize her choice.”
ROFL!! My sexual and reproductive choices and status are not up for discussion. I know that just drives you nuts but I will say that if this is the type of argument you have to resort to, your position is indeed weak.
“Apparently you do not know that rulings are OVERTURNED from time to time, rulings in which advocates of those laws were just as sure in their time as you are now.”
Rulings are only overturned when there is an actual compelling interest to do so and another case brought where the current precedent does not apply. The SCOTUS will not overturn Roe because of the superstitions and self-flagellations of delusional religionists.
Rulings are only overturned when there is an actual compelling interest to do so and another case brought where the current precedent does not apply. The SCOTUS will not overturn Roe because of the superstitions and self-flagellations of delusional religionists.
“When there’s an actual compelling interest”? Like…say…advancements in medical technology that have come about since 1970 that the SCOTUS had no clue about back then. Things like embryology, biology, genetics, and sonographic imaging, just to name a few! Advancements like these that have shown themselves to be a window into the womb letting us view the gestating being for what they are instead of just the absurd notion that they are “just tissue”, or “merely a clump of cells”.
“Another case brought where the current precedent does not apply”? Oh, like that one in Utah I mentioned that you just ignored up-thread that declared gestating human beings to be minor children of their parents? like that one?
Pro-Life is secular. The only one clinging to anything mildly resembling a religion here is you, with your absolute denial of scientific advancement-praying to the SCOTUS while adhering to dark-age notions like back when they used to believe gestating human beings were actually living human beings until “quickening” (the first time they moved on their own, which is bunk: quickening was just the first time the mother was able to feel them move).
secularprolife.org
““When there’s an actual compelling interest”? Like…say…advancements in medical technology that have come about since 1970 that the SCOTUS had no clue about back then.”
The SCOTUS does not overturn rulings on the basis of science, either. It overturns cases on the basis of other cases brought before it with a competing interest. Just because you had some emotional experience over your sonogram is not at all a reason to overturn a Supreme Court case. I know you may think your children are that special, but they aren’t.
“ROFL!! My sexual and reproductive choices and status are not up for discussion. I know that just drives you nuts but I will say that if this is the type of argument you have to resort to, your position is indeed weak.”
Yup. Definitely post-abortive.
“Yup. Definitely post-abortive.”
As I’ve already indicated my personal sexual history is off limits, and yet you persist in trying to talk about it, so I can only believe that this is because your obsession with what happens in other women’s underwear is a strange permutation of homosexuality.
I would be willing to bet money, LOTS of money, that you’ve never accused a man of being “post-abortive” and thus it’s definately about women.
The older I get the less disinclined I am to believe that the religiously delusional and sex-obsessed aren’t just closet cases.
The SCOTUS does not overturn rulings on the basis of science, either. It overturns cases on the basis of other cases brought before it with a competing interest. Just because you had some emotional experience over your sonogram is not at all a reason to overturn a Supreme Court case. I know you may think your children are that special, but they aren’t.
So…apparently justice is blind, and law is illiterate.
Did you miss the part where I cited the Utah Supreme Court’s decision that gestating human beings count as minor children? Where did I mention anything specific to my ultrasounds of my children? I’ve been Pro-Life since my college biology class when we studied human reproduction in-depth. The experience of having my children was only a reinforcement of that knowledge, AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE UTAH CASE.
Don’t worry, law, when Praxedes doesn’t have a legitimate attack, she plays the “you’re post-abortive, nah nah nah” card. It must be so difficult to believe that women have abortions, feel at peace with the decision, and are willing to fight to preserve that choice for other women.
law:
I once knew an old guy that thought by talking louder and slower to a neighbor who could not understand English and by repeating it often enough in ever increasing volume would suffice in getting his point across.
This is exactly what you are doing with your desperate repeating of your contention that RvW will never be overturned. You are grasping at straws my friend, your reasoning is neither logical nor is it based in fact.
You seem to think SCOTUS justices cannot discern the nuances of the law, as if your very small and self centered interpretation of the law trumps even those supporters of abortion who say it is bad law. Yes, I said SUPPORTERS of abortion who say RvW was bad law. Google it. Many of us have been in the prolife movement longer than you have been alive and we now see huge progress and momentum shifts towards prolife jurisprudence.
80 pieces of pro-life legislation in the various states were signed into law in 2011. Think about that and compare it to your whistling past the graveyard bravado about RvW standing forever.
I know you may think your children are that special, but they aren’t.
This is how a limited intellect reacts to being challenged. Very troll-like. Praxedes is right.
It must be so difficult to believe that women have abortions, feel at peace with the decision, and are willing to fight to preserve that choice for other women.
Not difficult at all. Human beings are capable of all sorts of atrocities, and even being comfortable with having committed them. ^_^
Kudos to everyone who has plowed through law’s comments. You are better than I am. I sometimes suffer from TADD (Troll Attention Deficit Disorder).
Megan – I am sure the “I’m the only happy person on the planet and everyone else must be miserable unless they have made the same life decisions I think they should make” is some form of narcissism and yet fear that their lives are ultimately quite miserable.
xalisae, as a matter of fact law is blind. It does not consider the prejudices of people with an axe to grind or their emotional difficulties; what matters is what is fair and equitable to all. If it does not ultimately conform to the US Constitution and the SCOTUS’ interpretation thereof, it will be overturned when someone brings the case. Roe is the exact same kind of law as Lawrence v. Texas, you can argue how that’s bad law all you want, and you can argue about all of the silly things each state likes to come up with that all ultimately get defeated when federal review ultimately has to be introduced. It doesn’t really matter what you try to do because none of your laws will be enforced, and the extreme vast majority of them get overturned. So really you may as well be bragging about how you enjoy wasting as much taxpayer money as possible.
No one wants to talk about Georgia’s criminalization of miscarriage bill? C’mon guys, surely someone here thought that one was just brilliant!
It does not consider the prejudices of people with an axe to grind or their emotional difficulties;
Umm…great. Who’s talking about people with an axe to grind and emotional difficulties? I’m talking about a party who in the former decision was not even allowed to be considered and now has much more scientific evidence on their side than they did when the original case granting others the right to legally kill them was first heard.
what matters is what is fair and equitable to all.
Exactly my point. This is why Roe will be overturned, probably very soon, because I hardly think being killed via poison/dismemberment then removed from your mother and disposed of as medical waste or flushed down a toilet is “fair and equitable”.
Thanks for your help with my argument!
“This is why Roe will be overturned, probably very soon”
It’s really sad how hopeful you all are about things like this, meanwhile Roe has been the foundation for case law for so long that the other cases and precedents that rely on it now are the many, many reasons why it won’t be overturned. Starting with the Roe case and then the overturning of Bowers v. Hardwick (actually we can go as far back as the overturning of Wolf v. Colorado) you would think you guys would notice the social direction that the SCOTUS has been going in for a very, very long time. But no, you’ve been enchanted by an ultrasound and think that everyone else should be enchanted by it too, and that American jurisprudence should be as enamored of the human embryo as you are.
“I’m talking about a party who in the former decision was not even allowed to be considered”
Well, when a blastocyst can hire an attorney and bring a case, I guess we can all kiss Roe goodbye. Until then…
And, with how fixated you are on cases that have little if anything to do with abortion itself, not even based on the Roe case, that you are using to back up your ramblings, it sounds to me as though you are grasping at straws. “Social direction” has nothing to do with scientific evidence in favor of the gestating human being which has yet to be heard.
Well, when a blastocyst can hire an attorney and bring a case, I guess we can all kiss Roe goodbye. Until then…
Yep. Just like Child Protective Services won’t exist until infants can hire their own attorney and press charges for their own abuse.
But no, you’ve been enchanted by an ultrasound
And once again, no, I’ve been Pro-Life since I developed an interest in biology and learned the difference between mitosis and meiosis, and what those accomplish. I can’t help the fact that everything subsequently (like ultrasound) only served to confirm what I had already learned. It sounds like you have issues with science. Sorry it doesn’t agree with you. :(
“And, with how fixated you are on cases that have little if anything to do with abortion itself”
That Roe is the foundation for a ton of other case law, I am sure, never occurred to you. (That the right to privacy was not decided by the Roe case also probably never occurred to you.) Here’s a ten page list of case law that cite Roe as a precedent, SCOTUS only. If you want circuit court cases, you can back up a page and click on it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=us&CiRestriction=410+u.s.+113&
Just like Child Protective Services won’t exist until infants can hire their own attorney and press charges for their own abuse.
I would be interested to see what happens when an attorney brings a case against a state and then the federal government on behalf of a dead zygote. I’m actually quite shocked you goofballs haven’t thought of it yet, there MUST be a reason why. Of course I know it would be difficult to find someone who would put his license and reputation on the line arguing that one in front of the SCOTUS, and a case like that is nothing if not contempt for the judicial system, but I wait with bated breath to see it happen when it does because I can always use the lulz even if it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. I might even go to the case itself, it would be like a judiciary Cirque du Soleil.
(BTW who would be the defendant in such a case and what would be the damages if any? Inquiring minds want to know, and I think taxpayers would want to know what the compensation would be to an aborted blastocyst should it win its case in court. Maybe someone should write up what Dead Blastocyst v. The United States would look like.)
I’ve been Pro-Life since I developed an interest in biology and learned the difference between mitosis and meiosis, and what those accomplish.
Well so far it looks like it’s been able to accomplish a stirring up of religious fanatics that didn’t have anything better to do with their time and have never heard of a Wii.
law:
I have seen your type hundreds of times. These are the faces of women driving by prolifers and screaming obscenities at them and flipping them the bird and sometimes swerving their cars at them. Rage is the thing that motivates them more than any other single factor. Rage is based upon ignorance and irrational emotional attachments. Get help soon!
Bottom line…taxpayers should NOT have to pay for anybody else’s abortions. it is irrelevent if anybody believes in abortion or not.
Yep. Just like Child Protective Services won’t exist until infants can hire their own attorney and press charges for their own abuse.
Prolife Women — Still Smart, Compassionate and Hilarious
I have seen your type hundreds of times. These are the faces of women driving by prolifers and screaming obscenities at them and flipping them the bird
Hm, I can’t be bothered to waste a good finger gesture at god botherers. It just excites them.
and sometimes swerving their cars at them.
People aren’t swerving to hit you if you’re actually standing in the area where cars drive.