| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 10/21/2009 6:53:48 AM | "Republicans had 6 Years of rule to stop abortion and they didn't do anything"
Perhaps of greater interest is that 7 or 9 supreme court justices are republican president appointees and they have not overturned roe v. wade...
Now there's actually a couple of messages there. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 10/22/2009 10:49:01 PM |
Perhaps of greater interest is that 7 or 9 supreme court justices are republican president appointees and they have not overturned roe v. wade...
Now there's actually a couple of messages there.
No, but the Roberts court did do some damage in 2007 by upholding the new Federal Law (2003) banning (as the Act problematically terms them) all "partial birth" abortion procedures, which goes against Roe v. Wade by not allowing an exception for the health of the mother. This was a 5-4 decision and it rather signals the direction in which the Roberts court would likely go were Roe brought to a more comprehensive test. The court can't just decide to reverse Roe v. Wade--there has to be a case brought first and I'm very uncomfortable with the possible outcome WHEN (rather, IMO, than IF) the real test case appears.
The fact that the Roberts court has now upheld a new law explicitly violating constitutional law (as set by judicial precedent via Roe) is NOT a good sign! | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 10/23/2009 10:48:19 AM |
The fact that the Roberts court has now upheld a new law explicitly violating constitutional law (as set by judicial precedent via Roe) is NOT a good sign!
Guess that depends if you're a fetus or not......... | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:10:35 PM |
Guess that depends if you're a fetus or not.........
If you are a fetus, you aren't going to care one way or the other....since you aren't sentient, have no consciousness, and certainly aren't well versed in modern American political discussion.
In other words, nice rhetorical thrust....but essentially meaningless. | |
|
| |
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 10/24/2009 12:58:30 AM | ^^^ Sorry dasein2. It is spelled fetus (although foetus is forgiven). Apparently, some sixteenth century English writers used the incorrect (foetus) spelling, and from there that spelling has become acceptable (English) usage, but fetus remains correct. It's from the Latin word (fetus), not Greek.
Btw, I really like your posts. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 10/31/2009 7:13:22 PM | In week 6 the brain is formed and the child responds to sound light pain and panic. You ever watched silent scream?
Republicans have over 40% of the pro choice people in their ranks they were never going to do anything about abortion. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:51:27 PM |
In week 6 the brain is formed and the child responds to sound light pain and panic. You ever watched silent scream?
While the embryo will have some reflexes present around the sixth week, at this time the embryo is only about 1/4 inch along, so I'm not sure why it is assumed that the embryo is responding to light, pain, or panic.
The brain is only fully developed by the 13th - 16th week and not the 6th week. The feeling of pain corresponds to this stage of development, so most persons conversant with fetal development acknowledge that responses to pain occur around this time and not before. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:19:59 AM | The SCOTUS erred in Roe v. Wade in two respects, IMHO. First, as stated in the decision the court found the right in the "penumbra" of the constitution. That is, it is not contained in the explict language, but rather in the lightest shawdow cast by the "intent" of constitution. Thus it was contrived and wrongly decided. But, that's a topic for another thread.
Secondly and perhaps even more importantly, the SCOTUS should have declined to hear the case. At the time of their intervention and decision the issue was being decided in state legislatures. That process was nearly complete in most of the states. Roe v. Wade was interjected and it threw the entire political process into chaos. Almost 40 years later it's still a divisional issue in american politics. An issue which would have long ago been settled in the legislative houses of each state were it not for the action of the SCOTUS. | |
|
| Abortion & Politics
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:53:48 AM | but rather in the lightest shawdow cast by the "intent" of constitution.
I disagree. The reason the Court took this up is because it is a constitutional issue. I would also argue that it is within the scope of the Constitution. The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of houses, papers, PERSONS, and effects. Obviously, the framers of the Constitution intended for citizins of the United States to free from unwanted governmental intrusion in their bodies.
Of course it is true that abortion is not explicity prohibited in the Constitution but the framers covered that issue as well under the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".
This could be known as the "anti-Scalia" amendment because he is the Justice that constantly argues: if it doesn't say it in the Constitution, you don't have a right to it. Obviously, the framers did not agree.
P.S. On a side note, this is also the correct rebuttle to those who argue that the Constitution does not grant a right to Universal Health Care. Just because the founders didn't think of it doesn't mean we don't have a right to it - if we demand it. Pretty crazy amendment huh? | |
|
Home
login 
