Roberts confirmation hearing

[VABills]

A majority of those WHO VOTED supported Bush in one of the two elections (by the smallest margin ever), yet based on most polls two-thirds of Americans believe that abortion shouldn't be totally banned.  Show me a poll where the majority of Americans say that all abortion should be banned.

440000[/snapback]

 

Your facts suck. Might want to go check Carter, Kennedy, Nixon and Wilson.

[Alaska Darin]

Ah, abortion. It's definitely as important in day to day life as it's politicized to be.

 

Lemmings.

[jimshiz]

I wouldn't put it that "abortion is legal" b/c it's a misnomer. I would say that most people see it in terms of "It's none of your damn business." With an issue that is so rancorous and split as abortion (defining "when life is life" which for many includes various religious beliefs), that is exactly where failing federal or state law (and it would be a failure when every time the other party is elected, the law changes, back and forth, back and forth) the "reserved to the people [to make their own decisions]' part of the Constitution kicks in. Odd that the SC filed it under right to privacy, but I guess that's just another way of saying the same thing. When emotions get high on the anti-choice side, they forget that little clause.

439698[/snapback]

 

To answer your "second part":

 

You have to be careful if you are going to use the argument that "it's none of your damn business" because people do lots of other things besides abortion that they might think is "none of your damn business", but it is illegal all the same.

 

Just because I believe that there is life at the moment of conception should not make this a religious issue.

 

So, for me, "reserved to the people" includes the mother, the baby, the father, etc. The baby should have a voice in the matter, but since they are innocent and cannot protect themselves, then others must speak out for their interests.

 

It is not a privacy issue if you want to kill somebody in your own house, on your own property, or in your womb.

 

And, I'm not a !@#$ing lemming because I am passionate about the abortion issue. I don't live off of other's buzz words. I thought it out on my own and that's just the conclusion that I came to.

 

As for the "racist" label - it is NOT sarcasm. It is actually what many people do call those of us who believe that affirmative action is wrong.

[Chilly]

To answer your "second part":

 

You have to be careful if you are going to use the argument that "it's none of your damn business" because people do lots of other things besides abortion that they might think is "none of your damn business", but it is illegal all the same.

 

Just because I believe that there is life at the moment of conception should not make this a religious issue.

 

So, for me, "reserved to the people" includes the mother, the baby, the father, etc.  The baby should have a voice in the matter, but since they are innocent and cannot protect themselves, then others must speak out for their interests.

 

It is not a privacy issue if you want to kill somebody in your own house, on your own property, or in your womb.

 

And, I'm not a !@#$ing lemming because I am passionate about the abortion issue.  I don't live off of other's buzz words.  I thought it out on my own and that's just the conclusion that I came to.

 

As for the "racist" label - it is NOT sarcasm.  It is actually what many people do call those of us who believe that affirmative action is wrong.

440354[/snapback]

 

 

You have more thinking to do since you believe Bush represents to a "T" everyone who voted for him and that the majority of Americans support making abortion illegal.

[Mickey]

To answer your "second part":

 

You have to be careful if you are going to use the argument that "it's none of your damn business" because people do lots of other things besides abortion that they might think is "none of your damn business", but it is illegal all the same.

 

Just because I believe that there is life at the moment of conception should not make this a religious issue.

 

So, for me, "reserved to the people" includes the mother, the baby, the father, etc.  The baby should have a voice in the matter, but since they are innocent and cannot protect themselves, then others must speak out for their interests.

 

It is not a privacy issue if you want to kill somebody in your own house, on your own property, or in your womb.

 

And, I'm not a !@#$ing lemming because I am passionate about the abortion issue.  I don't live off of other's buzz words.  I thought it out on my own and that's just the conclusion that I came to.

 

As for the "racist" label - it is NOT sarcasm.  It is actually what many people do call those of us who believe that affirmative action is wrong.

440354[/snapback]

"...the mother, the baby, the father, etc." Who is "etc"??? Are we going to take a vote among grandparents, uncles, aunts, third cousins, politicians, etc? I can see why the person in whose womb the fetus sits has a say but why a father or anyone else? Is there some sort of "right to fatherhood" in the constitution?

Woman's womb=community property?

[jimshiz]

"...the mother, the baby, the father, etc."  Who is "etc"???  Are we going to take a vote among grandparents, uncles, aunts, third cousins, politicians, etc?  I can see why the person in whose womb the fetus sits has a say but why a father or anyone else?  Is there some sort of "right to fatherhood" in the constitution?

Woman's womb=community property?

440635[/snapback]

 

etc. was going to be the doctor because lots of people say "it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor". But, I'm not sure a doctor should have a say.

 

It is a no brainer to me that there are 3 people involved each time this happens - mother, father, baby; unless it is twins or something. Now, I don't think a father should be able to say abort if the mom wants to keep the baby. But, I do think the father should be able to say don't abort. I'm allowing for a father to have the right to choose life.

[OnTheRocks]

i am going to turn this thread in a little bit of a different direction.

 

Joe Biden.

I would think....that the Democrats who sit somewhere in "Left-Center Field" would treat Roberts a little more respectfully. I am not saying he has done anything to deserve respect....but it just seems to make sense.

 

The Democrats have got to realize that America is listening to the tone they use. They don't get it. They really don't get it.

 

Everytime they get their clocks cleaned in a national election they scratch their heads and say.."we have to go back to the drawing board and find a way to make ourselves more appealing to middle america." Then they get on center stage like they have in the last couple days and rant and speak harshly to a man who really hasn't done anything to be spoken down to so much....and they show their true colors.

 

When Biden got into his pissing match with Roberts about what he should answer and who does he think he is.....and finished with his tongue in cheek, "Go ahead. Please continue to not answer our questions." My guess is he was trying to show his Extreme Left camp that he hasn't forgotten them. Well...I have news for Mr. Biden.....the folks in the Extreme Left camp aren't helping them win any elections.

[SilverNRed]

When Biden got into his pissing match with Roberts about what he should answer and who does he think he is.....and finished with his tongue in cheek, "Go ahead.  Please continue to not answer our questions."  My guess is he was trying to show his Extreme Left camp that he hasn't forgotten them.  Well...I have news for Mr. Biden.....the folks in the Extreme Left camp aren't helping them win any elections.

440666[/snapback]

Did he really say that? Geez, this isn't friggin' high school!

[EC-Bills]

Did he really say that?  Geez, this isn't friggin' high school!

440835[/snapback]

 

Of course not, it's junior high

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Of course not, it's junior high   

440875[/snapback]

 

Worse, it's Congress. Junior high without the lunch monitors.

[EC-Bills]

Worse, it's Congress.  Junior high without the lunch monitors.

440923[/snapback]

[jimshiz]

Did he really say that?  Geez, this isn't friggin' high school!

440835[/snapback]

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/

 

"Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best'

 

Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'..."

[SilverNRed]

http://www.drudgereport.com/

 

"Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best'

 

Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'..."

441044[/snapback]

Compared to the dipshits they actually have on the committee, I think anyone looks pretty good.

[Mickey]

etc. was going to be the doctor because lots of people say "it should be a decision between a woman and her doctor".  But, I'm not sure a doctor should have a say.

 

It is a no brainer to me that there are 3 people involved each time this happens - mother, father, baby; unless it is twins or something.  Now, I don't think a father should be able to say abort if the mom wants to keep the baby.  But, I do think the father should be able to say don't abort.  I'm allowing for a father to have the right to choose life.

440647[/snapback]

What would be the legal/constitutional basis for the father to have essentially a right of veto as you described it?

 

Would this right exist regardless of any circumstance such as a father who is not the woman's husband? For example, if a married woman has an affair and is pregnant by a man other than her husband and both she and her husband want to terminate the pregnancy, would the woman's lover, the biological father in this case, have the right to block her from having an abortion? What if the woman and the lover want to terminate but the husband wants the baby carried to term?

 

Would you draw a line at fathers and not extend this right to a grandfather or grandmother? If so, why?

 

My sense of this is that for the most part we are not talking about married people but instead about a casual sexual encounter resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. The woman and the man involved might be, for all intents and purposes, strangers to one another. Your idea would force that woman to notify the man, this relative stranger, if she can find him (what would stop her from saying simply that she had no idea who the father was?), and then cede to him control over what happens to her body for the next nine months and to her life afterwards. Pregnancy does not confer equal burdens upon the parents, it is most decidedly an unequally shared burden. Yet, your idea would grant equal rights without equal obligations and burdens. It would be far easier for the man to insist that the pregnancy go to term, afterall, its not his health that is effected.

 

The most common scenario I would think involves a woman who, without any laws to that effect, goes to the man afterwards and lets him know what the situation is and after whatever discussion they have, decisions are made. The people who likely don't engage in that type of very human way of dealing with an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, are those for whom such a rule as you propose would make the least sense. The most casual encounters between people least suited to handle the financial and emotional committment to one another and the baby that is required are the ones who will most likely not have a respectful discussion about what to do.

 

Talk to a young woman you know who sees abortion as something that should be legal, safe and rare. Someone who thinks abortion is murder wouldn't really be one effected by the rule you propose. Ask her to assume that she had a casual sexual encounter she immediately regretted as a huge mistake with a virtual stranger that resulted in a pregnancy. Then ask her how she would feel about having to find him, tell him, prove to the authorities that she told him and then ask her how she would feel if she decided to terminate the pregnancy but was legally blocked from doing so by this stranger. I recommend that you have this discussion while wearing suitable protection in the area of your groin, just as a precaution.

 

You end up with a woman being pregnant against her will. Imagine trying to stop her from getting an abortion from somebody somewhere. Imagine the prenatal care she is going to be willing to have. There would be women who would try to have a miscarriage.

 

Granting such rights to a pre-birth father, not much more in some cases than a sperm donor, at least prior to actual birth, is not as simple as it sounds.

[e.e.]

Personally, I'd like to see term limits for all lifetime appointed courts, like one term for 10 years, so we aren't stuck with the same people for so long.

438822[/snapback]

 

fantastic, then bush should appoint all the justices, as all the current ones have been serving for more than ten years. do you think there may be a reason the founders set things as they did? do you think they may have been wiser than the talking head morons that advocate this kind of idea?