"legislating from the bench"=BS?

[Ghost of BiB]

And what seat might that be?  From the top of the campus steeple with your .30-06 Springfield?

 

 

390914[/snapback]

 

No, that would be Ed.

[ExiledInIllinois]

No, that would be Ed.

390938[/snapback]

 

[KRC]

Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this. Some on the left want to scare people into thinking that if a pro-life person is nominated to the courts, that the apocalypse will be upon us. The “party of tolerance” wants to make sure that pro-life people are banned from the court because they could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade. The right states that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it just reverts back down to the states for legislation. What is missing in all of this is that Congress can write and pass any legislation, regardless of Supreme Court decisions. This applies to the federal as well as state level. If the legislature wanted to outlaw abortions tomorrow, they can do that. If they wanted to write the “Protection of Babies Act,” they can do that as well.

[Lemur King]

If the legislature wanted to outlaw abortions tomorrow, they can do that. If they wanted to write the “Protection of Babies Act,” they can do that as well.

392051[/snapback]

 

Under their powers granted in the commerce clause, no doubt.

[Mickey]

Against my better judgment, I am going to weigh in on this. Some on the left want to scare people into thinking that if a pro-life person is nominated to the courts, that the apocalypse will be upon us. The “party of tolerance” wants to make sure that pro-life people are banned from the court because they could possibly overturn Roe v. Wade. The right states that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it just reverts back down to the states for legislation. What is missing in all of this is that Congress can write and pass any legislation, regardless of Supreme Court decisions. This applies to the federal as well as state level. If the legislature wanted to outlaw abortions tomorrow, they can do that. If they wanted to write the “Protection of Babies Act,” they can do that as well.

392051[/snapback]

I have made that point a few times with those who have suggested that the question, in a post-Roe world, would be thrown back to the states.

 

Congress could pass such a law right now but given the 5-4 split upholding Roe, any such legislation would have been struck down adding yet another precedent supporting Roe thereby making it even more difficult to overturn. That is why, in my opinion, the right has not pushed for such legislation since the decision in Casey.

 

Once Roe is overturned or even sooner, once they feel they have a majority on the court for overturning Roe, I think they will pass such a law very quickly. The only stumbling block would be a Senate filibuster and the majority will simply brush that aside the second it gets in their way.

 

Projecting out on the kind of post-Roe, post nationwide ban, reproductive landscape that would then ensue can be frightening and fascinating at the same time. The pro-life crowd would probably not just pull up stakes and go home but instead would just pick another target. Italy just had a law passed that forces women who use fertility clinics to have all fertilized eggs implanted in their womb because otherwise, those eggs in storage would be "murdered". They will likely focus on moring-after like pills. As a thriving illegal abortion market takes root, I am sure they will start calling for a "war against drugs" type of approach focusing legal resources on stopping illegal abortions. That doesn't even begin to speculate on what lunacy the far left will embrace in protest. Abortion buses sponsored by NOW streaming across the Peace Bridge to Canada laden with pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant?

 

I can easily imagine strongly pro-choice states not willing to accept and certainly not to enforce federal legislation banning all abortions. Maybe we will see national guard units from Texas marched into Manhattan surrounding clinics to enforce federal law where state authorities refuse to do so. Maybe toss a few doctors in prison, who knows? The possibilities are pretty endless and although I would never have thought that any party would swing that far from the center, even on abortion, I have long since given up pretending there are such limits. After witnessing the public flogging of Arlen Specter and the whole stem cell carnival, I am not counting on discretion ruling the day.

 

As for litmus tests on the court, that has been the case for the far left and the far right. Arguably, more so for the right. The only difference is what constitutes a passing score in the eyes of each of party. What gets everyone's dander up is when a Judge, expected during confirmation hearings to vote one way, actually votes another. These non-litmus test decisions led the right to go ballistic. Accordingly, they loved Souter and Kennedy when they were being confirmed but suddenly they became lousy judges when they voted as they saw fit. Its almost as if the right felt that these Justices had promised to rule one way and broke that promise when they didn't. Talk about a litmus test. To the left, they were simply pleasant surprises and supportive of the notion that their postion was so correct on the law that even right wing judges had to agree.

 

For example, in Casey, I believe all 5 justices who voted to uphold Roe were appointed by Republicans. In particular, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, when they were confirmed, it was thought that they each would vote to overturn Roe if given the opportunity. Even so, they were confirmed by the Senate which was controlled by the Democrats. They would not even have had to use a filibuster to keep them off the bench. No litmus test was applied by the Democrats as to those justices.

 

I am quite certain that Roberts is being selected not just because he is a smart guy with a good record. He was selected because he is believed to be a sure bet to overturn Roe. There will be democrats who will oppose him for just this reason. If it is bad to choose Judges based on how you think they will rule then both sides are guilty of this.

 

The court in Casey was made up of the following Justices:

 

The 5 that voted to uphold Roe:

 

O'Connor (Reagan)

Kennedy (Reagan)

Souter (Bush)

Blackmun (Nixon)

Stevens (Ford)

 

The four against:

 

White (Kennedy)

Scalia (Reagan)

Thomas (Bush)

Rehnquist (Nixon)

 

Since then, Blackmun and White were replaced by Bryer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees. If a case had come up similar to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, placing Roe squarely on the chopping block, the vote would have likely been 6-3 instead of just 5-4. The main abortion case to come up since Casey, in my opinion, is the one on partial birth abortion. The Casey majority lost Kennedy and Blackmun but added Ginsburg and Breyer. The dissent in Casey lost White but added Kennedy. The end result was another 5-4 decision that supported Roe.

 

I think it is fair to say that O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy were the last Justices on the Court whose votes, at least on abortion, couldn't always be predicted. Say what you want about them, they did act with independence. Maybe Roberts will join them but I don't think so.

[Mickey]

Under their powers granted in the commerce clause, no doubt.

392365[/snapback]

one clause fits all...literally

[KRC]

He was selected because he is believed to be a sure bet to overturn Roe. 

 

What, in his previous opinions, leads you to believe this?

[KRC]

As for litmus tests on the court, that has been the case for the far left and the far right.  Arguably, more so for the right. 

392521[/snapback]

 

What data do you have to back this up?

[Mickey]

What data do you have to back this up?

392535[/snapback]

O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, Thomas and Scalia were all confirmed by a democratically controlled Senate. All were expected at the time of their confirmation to vote to overturn Roe. Even so, democrats confirmed them even though they would not have neeed to filibuster the nomination to do so. Because they were expected to overturn Roe, the right reacted with anger and accusations of betrayal when three of them, O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy voted the way they did in the Casey case.

 

The most egregious example of a "litmus test" nomination was Clarence Thomas, one of the most unqualified and unimpressive Supreme Court nominations in the modern era. He was nominated by a Republican president. He was a judge for only 1 year, 1 lousy year on the CofA for the DC Circuit before he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Compare his experience to the others on the bench:

 

 

Breyer: 14 years as a judge, 13 years as a professor

Ginsburg: 13 years as a judge, 17 years as a professor

Kennedy: 13 years as a judge, 23 as a professor

Souter: 12 years as a judge on 3 different courts

O'Connor: 6 years as a judge on two different courts

Stevens: 5 years as a judge, 8 years as a professor

Scalia: 4 years as a judge, 14 years as a professor

Rehnquist: No judicial experience, clerked for a Supreme and was asst. US AG

Thomas: 1 year as a judge

 

Funny, the most experienced judges on the Court are the ones who were in the majority in either the Casey case or the Nebraska "partial birth abortion" case. The least experienced are the most reliable votes against Roe. Scalia was a professor and a well respected one from 1967 to 1981 so he was more qualified than just his 4 years as a judge would indicate. Rhenquist and Thomas had no great academic, judicial or other qualifications that would have led you to say, had you examined their pre-appointment resumes, "this guy is a shoe in for the highest court in the land".

 

Rhenquist was appointed before Roe was even decided so he wasn't a litmus test guy. His qualifications were mostly political but he did clerk for a Supreme which is a big deal and he was known as one of the top lawyers of the day back then. It isn't like he was shockingly unqualified.

 

Thomas was a litmus test all the way, it sure wasn't all that valuable experience he picked up as a staff counsel for Monsanto.

 

If democrats used a litmus test, they would have defeated Thomas, Scalia, Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. They didn't. The most obvious litmus test was a republican appointment. Against that you have Bork who lost on an up and down vote by the way, not on a filibuster. Like I said, both use the litmus test, republicans arguably more so.

[Mickey]

What, in his previous opinions, leads you to believe this?

392530[/snapback]

Lets see, he has been on the bench for only 2 years so there aren't many opinions to look at period. Is there some reason why I am limited to looking only at his handful of judicial opinions to conclude that the belief that he would overturn Roe played heavily in his selection by a clearly anti-Roe President? Why limit the inquiry to just his judicial opinions?

[KRC]

Lets see, he has been on the bench for only 2 years so there aren't many opinions to look at period.  Is there some reason why I am limited to looking only at his handful of judicial opinions to conclude that the belief that he would overturn Roe played heavily in his selection by a clearly anti-Roe President?  Why limit the inquiry to just his judicial opinions?

392666[/snapback]

 

So, he will overturn Roe because Bush is pro-life. You need to do better than that, counselor.

 

You look at his court opinions to determine his process at reaching his decisions. As you mentioned before, historically some justices have not voted the way that they were originally portrayed. There is nothing to say that Roberts will overturn Roe based on the fact that Bush nominated him. Again, let history be your guide.

[Alaska Darin]

Again, can someone please explain why slaughtering the unborn seems to be the only thing Democrats care about when the Supreme Court is the subject?

 

Keep wondering why you're losing elections to the likes of George W. Bush

[Ghost of BiB]

Again, can someone please explain why slaughtering the unborn seems to be the only thing Democrats care about when the Supreme Court is the subject?

 

Keep wondering why you're losing elections to the likes of George W. Bush

392716[/snapback]

 

I could say...but I know it was rhetorical. And most people don't know why.

[Reuben Gant]

There are Pro-life Democrats.

Just as there are Pro-Choice Republicans like Pataki, and Condi Rice.

[erynthered]

I cant read anymore of this blather. Talk about a crusade. Please put me on ignore, because I've just put you on it. Christ.

[Reuben Gant]

I cant read anymore of this blather. Talk about a crusade. Please put me on ignore, because I've just put you on it. Christ.

392758[/snapback]

Was that for me?

[erynthered]

Was that for me?

392793[/snapback]

 

 

No...Sorry if it seemed that way.

[Mickey]

Again, can someone please explain why slaughtering the unborn seems to be the only thing Democrats care about when the Supreme Court is the subject?

 

Keep wondering why you're losing elections to the likes of George W. Bush

392716[/snapback]

"baby slaughtering"? Do you seriously believe that is what it is?

[Reuben Gant]

No...Sorry if it seemed that way.

392812[/snapback]

[Mickey]

So, he will overturn Roe because Bush is pro-life.    You need to do better than that, counselor.

 

You look at his court opinions to determine his process at reaching his decisions. As you mentioned before, historically some justices have not voted the way that they were originally portrayed. There is nothing to say that Roberts will overturn Roe based on the fact that Bush nominated him. Again, let history be your guide.

392681[/snapback]

I am letting history be my guide, history like Thomas and Scalia. Sure, sometimes Presidents are wrong about what their nominee will do once on the bench but very often they are right. Roberts has been closely tied to Scalia and Rhenquist (he clerked for Rhenquist) so I think he will be just as hot to overturn Roe as they both have been.

 

Besides, the point really isn't whether he will or won't at this stage. The question is whether he has been "litmus tested" by the administration, whether the belief that he in fact will vote to overturn Roe played a major role in his being selected. I have no doubts on that score. There is simply no way this President, given his views on the subject and the depth of his support among the religious right, selected a guy he has any doubts about on abortion. No way. Could he be wrong? Sure, it could happen. Even if he is though, the fact remains that both sides are "litmus testing" nominees. It is just plain silly for either side to point the finger at the other and complain about litmus tests.

 

No one can predict the future but all in all, I'd bank on Roberts overturning Roe in a heart beat and I say that without any concern as to whether it should or should not be overturned. He will vote to overturn it and Bush's belief that he will and the belief that he will on the part of the far right is an important factor in his selection.

[Alaska Darin]

"baby slaughtering"?  Do you seriously believe that is what it is?

392814[/snapback]

It doesn't matter what I believe. Apparently it only matters what 12 dudes in robes believe.

 

Go Dummycrats.

[Wacka]

It doesn't matter what I believe.  Apparently it only matters what 12 dudes in robes believe.

 

Go Dummycrats.

392966[/snapback]

 

I agree with you AD, but it's been 7 dudes and 2 dudettes.

Yes, it is baby killing. There is a unique human life forming with a unique human genetic makeup.

[Alaska Darin]

I agree with you AD, but it's been 7 dudes and 2 dudettes.

Yes, it is baby killing. There is a unique human life forming with a unique human genetic makeup.

392984[/snapback]

Sorry, kinda froggy today for some reason.

[Mickey]

If you guys truly believe that it is baby killing, the wanton slaughter of innocents, etc, are you guys out there protesting at clinics, handing out wanted posters of doctors or something like that? I may not agree with those who do but I have to respect their undeniable passion. If you truly believe that this is an infant holocaust, can sitting on the sidelines be justified? I don't mean to call into question the sincerity of anyone's opposition to abortion, I just want to know if the passion behind that opposition goes beyond overheated rhetoric.

 

As for the concern about the Supreme Court deciding this issue, that is their job, passing on the constitutionality of legislation. To every power there is a check.

You may take the position that the constitution was not implicated in those statutes that prohibited abortion circa 1972 but certainly, upon that issue reasonable minds may differ.

[Wacka]

Wanting abortion practictioners killed is the lunatic fringe and you know it. Most people who protest in front of the abortion mills want to show the women who are contemplating it exactly what the result looks like. Most are willing to pray for those murdered inside.

I get my view across by supporting and voting for pro-life politicians. I support those politicians that will vote for SCOTUS members that will get rid of the henious Roe vs Wade decision.

 

Somethimg is really wrong when a teemager can get an abortion without her parents knowing, but just try to give her an aspirin at the clinic at school.

[Alaska Darin]

If you guys truly believe that it is baby killing, the wanton slaughter of innocents, etc, are you guys out there protesting at clinics, handing out wanted posters of doctors or something like that?  I may not agree with those who do but I have to respect their undeniable passion.  If you truly believe that this is an infant holocaust, can sitting on the sidelines be justified?  I don't mean to call into question the sincerity of anyone's opposition to abortion, I just want to know if the passion behind that opposition goes beyond overheated rhetoric.

 

As for the concern about the Supreme Court deciding this issue, that is their job, passing on the constitutionality of legislation.  To every power there is a check.

You may take the position that the constitution was not implicated in those statutes that prohibited abortion circa 1972 but certainly, upon that issue reasonable minds may differ.

393023[/snapback]

Nice rhetoric.

 

I don't like abortion but I'm a pragmatist. Like most things, I don't believe making it illegal is going to change whether it happens or not. Personally, I wish people were more responsible for their own actions and I wish parents were far more proactive in teaching their children.

[Mickey]

Wanting abortion practictioners killed is the lunatic fringe and you know it. Most people who protest in front of the abortion mills want to show the women who are contemplating it exactly what the result looks like.  Most are willing to pray for those murdered inside.

I get my view across by supporting and voting for  pro-life  politicians. I support those politicians that will vote for SCOTUS members that will get rid of the henious Roe vs Wade decision.

 

Somethimg is really wrong when a teemager can get an abortion without her parents knowing, but just try to give her an aspirin at the clinic at school.

393194[/snapback]

Are they lunatics though? If we assume that abortion is the murder of a baby as you believe so completely and without apparent exception, fully as if a two day old infant were clubbed to death, why would it be lunacy to use force against the murderers? Are those who would do so lunatics?

 

Self defense and defense of another are legitimate defenses to murder charges in every state. It is as venerable a precedent in criminal law as any known. Force can be used in self defense and in defendse of another. Deadly force can be used in self defense and defense of another if you or the person you are defending is being threatened by deadly force.

 

If you agree that abortion is the slaughter of babies and if you believe that self defense and defense of another are legitimate acts, would it not be inconsistent for one to then conclude that killing abortionists or handing out wanted posters with doctors pictures on them are the acts of lunatics?

 

In the face of what is, by your definition, a holocaust, is it really acceptable to fight back simply by voting for republicans once a year? You seem to me to be the kind of person who wouldn't hesitate to jump in the deep end to save a drowning man or body slam a purse snatcher as he tried to run by you. I don't really know you so I can only guess but it seems to me that if you really believe your own rhetoric on this, "baby slaughtering" and all, you would want to do more.

[Alaska Darin]

Are they lunatics though?  If we assume that abortion is the murder of a baby as you believe so completely and without apparent exception, fully as if a two day old infant were clubbed to death, why would it be lunacy to use force against the murderers?  Are those who would do so lunatics?

 

Self defense and defense of another are legitimate defenses to murder charges in every state.  It is as venerable a precedent in criminal law as any known.  Force can be used in self defense and in defendse of another.  Deadly force can be used in self defense and defense of another if you or the person you are defending is being threatened by deadly force.

 

If you agree that abortion is the slaughter of babies and if you believe that self defense and defense of another are legitimate acts, would it not be inconsistent for one to then conclude that killing abortionists or handing out wanted posters with doctors pictures on them are the acts of lunatics?

 

In the face of what is, by your definition, a holocaust, is it really acceptable to fight back simply by voting for republicans once a year?  You seem to me to be the kind of person who wouldn't hesitate to jump in the deep end to save a drowning man or body slam a purse snatcher as he tried to run by you.  I don't really know you so I can only guess but it seems to me that if you really believe your own rhetoric on this, "baby slaughtering" and all, you would want to do more.

393329[/snapback]

Gee, I wonder why people hate lawyers?

[Mickey]

Nice rhetoric.

 

I don't like abortion but I'm a pragmatist.  Like most things, I don't believe making it illegal is going to change whether it happens or not.  Personally, I wish people were more responsible for their own actions and I wish parents were far more proactive in teaching their children.

393282[/snapback]

I thought that was your view but then you dropped in that "baby slaughtering" comment so I thought maybe I was wrong on that and your position was a little stronger than simply not liking abortion. I don't like it either. Just seems to me that from a constitutional standpoint and a practical one, having it legal with a number of restrictions is about the least worst choice among many lousy ones. At the same time, I don't claim to have cornered the market on wisdom on this issue enough to just dismiss any opposing view as that of a republican apparatchik or a "dummycrat". It is like trying to understand that there are football fans who root for teams other than the Bills. They have a right to I guess but lord knows I'll never understand them.

[Alaska Darin]

I thought that was your view but then you dropped in that "baby slaughtering" comment so I thought maybe I was wrong on that and your position was a little stronger than simply not liking abortion.  I don't like it either.  Just seems to me that from a constitutional standpoint and a practical one, having it legal with a number of restrictions is about the least worst choice among many lousy ones.  At the same time, I don't claim to have cornered the market on wisdom on this issue enough to just dismiss any opposing view as that of a republican apparatchik or a "dummycrat".  It is like trying to understand that there are football fans who root for teams other than the Bills.  They have a right to I guess but lord knows I'll never understand them.

393335[/snapback]

I dropped it because that's what it is. We can sterilize it by calling it "reproductive rights" or whatever phrase makes people happy, but that doesn't change the fact that they're basically killing a little person for convenience or whatever. I've yet to meet any woman who has had one who doesn't have a hard time with the choice.

 

Neither side of the aisle has ever grasped that the very definition of humanity means that legislating morality doesn't work. That doesn't mean they aren't going to stop trying, apparently.

 

At the end of the day pushing all of these things off on some faceless bureaucracy has made us a weaker community, not a stronger one.

[Mickey]

Gee, I wonder why people hate lawyers? 

393334[/snapback]

If you were walking down the street and you were armed (not really a hypothetical is it? ) and you came upon some guy who had a kid by the throat and was about to kill the child, wouldn't you shoot the creep without worrying whether you were going to jail or not? If I did it and you were on the jury, would you convict me or would you let me off based on the "defense of another" defense I described?

 

I don't believe that abortion is baby killing so I can only inquire of those who truly believe that, what are you doing home? I suspect that for many, the "baby killing" phrase is propaganda, hurled about for political effect as a real attention getter. Basically, its overheated rhetoric that is thrown casually around whenever the issue is debated. To be fair, maybe on some level or in some cases they truly believe it is child murder but even so, recognize that it just isn't the same thing as a psycho strangling a baby but that it is something less. I am testing my suspicions by asking those who use that kind of rhetorical bomb.

 

I do know one thing, discussing this issue with some sanity may ultimately require that both sides leave that kind of roadside bomb behind. It is just possible that those who favor some degeree of legal abortion do so because of a genuine belief that there is no real human life developing and that there is an important liberty interest involved. It is also just possible that those who would see Roe overturned simply believe that there is a human life developing that is worthy of protection even as against what might otherwise be a legitimate liberty interest. Coat hangar waving and shouting "baby killer!", I suggest, is what makes this issue so impossible to deal with rationally.

[Mickey]

I dropped it because that's what it is.  We can sterilize it by calling it "reproductive rights" or whatever phrase makes people happy, but that doesn't change the fact that they're basically killing a little person for convenience or whatever.  I've yet to meet any woman who has had one who doesn't have a hard time with the choice.

 

Neither side of the aisle has ever grasped that the very definition of humanity means that legislating morality doesn't work.  That doesn't mean they aren't going to stop trying, apparently.

 

At the end of the day pushing all of these things off on some faceless bureaucracy has made us a weaker community, not a stronger one.

393345[/snapback]

Doesn't Roe, by leaving it up to individuals essentially, throw it out of the hands of faceless bueaucracies and into our hands for us to do the right thing or be justly shunned for not doing the right thing? Saying it should be legal and saying it is right are two different things. I have no problem with people arguing that it is a terrible, terrible choice from the top of the tallest soap box they can find. Let people decide for themselves and bear the consequences of the decisions they make. I think Roe does that and I think post-Roe, that won't be the case.

 

At the same time though, I still don't get anyone believing in their heart that all abortion is baby killing and who isn't very actively involved in trying to put an end to it. I don't think voting for pro-choice candidates once a year qualifies as being "very active". Then again, I guess you can be against terrorism without necessarily manning the trenches.

[Alaska Darin]

Doesn't Roe, by leaving it up to individuals essentially, throw it out of the hands of faceless bueaucracies and into our hands for us to do the right thing or be justly shunned for not doing the right thing?  Saying it should be legal and saying it is right are two different things.  I have no problem with people arguing that it is a terrible, terrible choice from the top of the tallest soap box they can find.  Let people decide for themselves and bear the consequences of the decisions they make.  I think Roe does that and I think post-Roe, that won't be the case.

 

At the same time though, I still don't get anyone believing in their heart that all abortion is baby killing and who isn't very actively involved in trying to put an end to it.  I don't think voting for pro-choice candidates once a year qualifies as being "very active".  Then again, I guess you can be against terrorism without necessarily manning the trenches.

393401[/snapback]

I don't know what "post Roe" is going to look like and I doubt we ever see that day. Call it a hunch.

 

I also don't see it as anywhere near a big deal so many others do. I, of course, am far more concerned about my Constitutional rights being infringed upon. The most recent decision is of high concern, despite Nozzlenut's whacky take.

[Mickey]

I don't know what "post Roe" is going to look like and I doubt we ever see that day.  Call it a hunch.

 

I also don't see it as anywhere near a big deal so many others do.  I, of course, am far more concerned about my Constitutional rights being infringed upon.  The most recent decision is of high concern, despite Nozzlenut's whacky take.

393504[/snapback]

I think partial birth is gone because Kennedy, who sided with the majority to uphold the basics of Roe in Casey was in the minority in the Nebraska case on partial birth along with Scalia and company. Roberts alone is probably not enough to overturn Roe. If the judges around when Casey was decided go the same way, it will be Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Stevens and Souter on one side and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist on the other. The guy who might move is Kennedy. If Scalia gets Kennedy to repudiate his own ruling in Casey, Roe is gone. Otherwise, Roe will be around until Stevens retires.

[Ghost of BiB]

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world...

[ATBNG]

 

I don't believe that abortion is baby killing so I can only inquire of those who truly believe that, what are you doing home?  I suspect that for many, the "baby killing" phrase is propaganda, hurled about for political effect as a real attention getter.  Basically, its overheated rhetoric that is thrown casually around whenever the issue is debated.  To be fair, maybe on some level or in some cases they truly believe it is child murder but even so, recognize that it just isn't the same thing as a psycho strangling a baby but that it is something less.  I am testing my suspicions by asking those who use that kind of rhetorical bomb.

 

393357[/snapback]

 

This is utterly absurd.

 

The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the heart, eye ear and respiratory functions all form in the first month. Brain waves are detectable at around six weeks. The only direction that science could possibly take us in the future is better technology that determines that these things occur even earlier in the gestation process.

 

If it's not "baby killing," then what is it? When does life begin then, Mickey? Should we be able to prosecute people other than a mother - say a potential grandfather who doesn't want to experience the "shame" of his daughter's single motherhood and assaults his daughter causing a miscarriage - should assault and battery be the only crime on the table?

 

If you wish to know some truth about abortion and whether or not it is baby killing, you're not going to obtain it by evaluating the content of the opposing side's rhetoric, concluding that it is overheated, and thus believing that your position is the sensible one.

 

The other argument you're pushing, that a lack of action on the part of those who believe abortion to be murder suggests they don't really believe that, is equally inane. Do you think that MLK was not really committed to his cause because he didn't use a more forceful approach (like say the Black Panthers?)? Is a willingness to commit violence the ultimate arbiter of what is a truly worthy cause?

 

I'm not a big fan of SUV's. In fact, I detest them. I think that they contribute to a lot of accidents on the road, damage to the road, damage to the environment, and dependence on oil from a people that we are in many ways at war with. Yet I don't think that entitles me to stab the tires of every SUV that I walk by. I recognize there are a substantial amount of people who do not agree with me; I'll await the opportunity to vote accordingly and perhaps impress upon people that I meet and know how I feel and why.

 

Abortion is legal in this country; mere opposition to the procedure does not justify criminal actions against doctors, pregnant women, and deadbeat impregnators.

[Mickey]

This is utterly absurd.

 

The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the heart, eye ear and respiratory functions all form in the first month. Brain waves are detectable at around six weeks. The only direction that science could possibly take us in the future is better technology that determines that these things occur even earlier in the gestation process.

 

If it's not "baby killing," then what is it? When does life begin then, Mickey? Should we be able to prosecute people other than a mother - say a potential grandfather who doesn't want to experience the "shame" of his daughter's single motherhood and assaults his daughter causing a miscarriage - should assault and battery be the only crime on the table?

 

If you wish to know some truth about abortion and whether or not it is baby killing, you're not going to obtain it by evaluating the content of the opposing side's rhetoric, concluding that it is overheated, and thus believing that your position is the sensible one.

 

The other argument you're pushing, that a lack of action on the part of those who believe abortion to be murder suggests they don't really believe that, is equally inane. Do you think that MLK was not really committed to his cause because he didn't use a more forceful approach (like say the Black Panthers?)? Is a willingness to commit violence the ultimate arbiter of what is a truly worthy cause? 

 

I'm not a big fan of SUV's. In fact, I detest them. I think that they contribute to a lot of accidents on the road, damage to the road, damage to the environment, and dependence on oil from a people that we are in many ways at war with. Yet I don't think that entitles me to stab the tires of every SUV that I walk by. I recognize there are a substantial amount of people who do not agree with me; I'll await the opportunity to vote accordingly and perhaps impress upon people that I meet and know how I feel and why.

 

Abortion is legal in this country; mere opposition to the procedure does not justify criminal actions against doctors, pregnant women, and deadbeat impregnators.

393769[/snapback]

The person with whom I was discussing this believes that abortion is the slaughter of babies and when asked what he was doing to stop what he believes is a holocaust, he said he votes pro-life. Thats it. He votes. Sorry, but I don't see that as a sufficient response to baby murder. How about a protest? How about cash contributions? How about mailing lists? There are lots of ways to respond to such a terrible horror as you believe is taking place.

 

You bring up MLK, well, he did dedicate his life, his every waking day to the civil rights struggle didn't he? He got death threats daily and kept on. He was hounded by the government and still he kept on. He demonstrated his committment in a thousand ways. Do you think that is a little more than just pulling a lever or two in a booth every November? No, he wasn't a black panther but he wasn't sitting at home on the sidelines either.

 

Take your SUV example, do you think maybe you could do something about SUV's short of stabbing tires? Maybe you could join the Sierra Club or contribute to some other environmental group for example. If you really think SUV's are a problem but all you do is sit home and complain to the air about them, you are either not really all that upset about SUV's or you are too lazy to do anything but b**ch.

 

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the secrets of life for all man kind. I am simply trying to see if maybe this debate could be more civil, more able to reach some sort of consensus. My belief is that throwing around all this "baby killing" stuff is counterproductive unless you think inspiring the Eric Rudolphs of the world is productive. Of course, we could just cut this short and go back to where these things usually end up: You call me a baby killer and I call you a christian taliban or some such equally enlightening exchange.

[ATBNG]

Unlike you, I don't claim to know the secrets of life for all man kind.  I am simply trying to see if maybe this debate could be more civil, more able to reach some sort of consensus.  My belief is that throwing around all this "baby killing" stuff is counterproductive unless you think inspiring the Eric Rudolphs of the world is productive.  Of course, we could just cut this short and go back to where these things usually end up: You call me a baby killer and I call you a christian taliban or some such equally enlightening exchange.

393803[/snapback]

 

There is no point where I asserted that I know "the secrets of life." I don't.

 

I think though that it is disingenuous to say that pro-lifers are throwing around the term "baby killer" to inspire Eric Rudolph - that's simply not true. It's especially tough to take when you yourself didn't answer the question where you think life begins (and this isn't some "secret" of life - there's plenty of scientific information out there that can be evaluated...this is not to say that different conclusions from that data from my own are necessarily invalid). Perhaps many have concluded that aborting a fetus having functioning heart and brain tissue is doing just that - killing a baby.

 

Why accuse them of a horrible ulterior notion - to inspire a grotesque murderer? Is that your idea of civility? Should you really be surprised that you're not getting anywhere?

[Wacka]

Remember, Mickey is a lawyer. They BS for a living.

[Mickey]

There is no point where I asserted that I know "the secrets of life." I don't.

 

I think though that it is disingenuous to say that pro-lifers are throwing around the term "baby killer" to inspire Eric Rudolph - that's simply not true. It's especially tough to take when you yourself didn't answer the question where you think life begins (and this isn't some "secret" of life - there's plenty of scientific information out there that can be evaluated...this is not to say that different conclusions from that data from my own are necessarily invalid). Perhaps many have concluded that aborting a fetus having functioning heart and brain tissue is doing just that - killing a baby.

 

Why accuse them of a horrible ulterior notion - to inspire a grotesque murderer? Is that your idea of civility? Should you really be surprised that you're not getting anywhere?

393820[/snapback]

Excuse me for not accepting a lecture on civility from someone who began our exchange by declaring my position to be "absurd".

 

I never said it was their intention to do inspre a killer, but, that type of rhetoric has that effect doesn't it? I'm sure Rudolph's victims would be comforted knowing that those who provided the moral justification for his actions didn't mean it. All those "wanted dead or alive" posters with doctors pictures on them were, I suppose, all in good fun. Besides, if this is the wanton slaughter of innocents, aren't the Eric Rudolphs of the world justified? If you came upon a psycho about to murder a child and you could stop him by killing him, why wouldn't you? If you believe your own rhetoric, what are you doing about this mass killing of babies? This is the consequence of the postion that this is the "murder of babies".

 

I am happy for you that you have solved the mystery of when life begins. Perhaps you could write a book or appear as an expert witness the next time the issue comes up in a federal case. I have read plenty of research on the issue, especially sentience which is a far more relevant inquiry then asking simply, "is it alive?. A sperm cell is alive. My skin cells are alive. Neither have constitutionally protected rights let alone rights that would be held superior to the rights of real live, born, human beings.

 

The bottom line though is I wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone else what they should or should not believe. I am not a priest or a philosopher. I approach the issuer from a legal standpoint. There is no bright line that makes this decision for us. Under Roe as it stands now, we all, within the bounds of a number of restrictions, can decide for ourselves. No one is forcing pro-lifers to have abortions but pro-lifers do want to force others into having children they do not want. Based on the law, the holding in Roe is sound. Even a number of conservative justices appointed by Republican Presidents have ultimately agreed and that is why Roe is still around. It is Republican appointees who have kept it alive, not Ruth Ginsburg.

 

I respect your view that an unborn child is "life" from the instant it is fertilized and wouldn't dream of calling it "absurd" though I do disagree. What I don't respect are people who claim to seriously believe that there is a baby holocaust, a mass slaughter of innocent little babies going on and in the face of that supposed horror have decided to do nothing. Actions speak louder than words and they certainly don't act like someone who thinks babies are being murdered by the bushel down the street. If you really think that is what is happening, you should be ashamed that rather than going out there to try and save a baby, you are here jousting with my absurdities.