Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
Scalia is good, but Thomas is totally consistant. Thomas is more like Bork than Bork is.
"The only thing the death-mongers have left is lots of money. Lots and lots and lots of money. But even money fails, at some point."
That and the courts... which is what they are in danger of losing and hence this thread and the vitriol that accompanies it.
Many libertarian-types oppose ending abortion because they might have to be held responsible for all of their illegitimate offspring.
This is the Hefner-Porno cultural mindset that brought us sex without consequences. Porn and abortion go hand in hand. Pornography fuels the flame of abortion... unwanted women... unwanted children. This is why often on FR, these libertarian-types will defend both to the death. They have a personal interest at stake (and before somebody crys foul, I've read the posts).
Longevity has been extended more in the last hundred years than two thousand years prior. In the last thirty years and especially the last ten years there has been several discoveries and inventions that telegraph cures for human death.
"The legislature has gone fatter (SIC) by restricting Partial Birth abortions."
I assume you meant farther. Show me where ONE of these laws has been found in conformity to Roe/Wade or Doe/Bolton. Go ahead.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"If that kind of support really existed, a constitutional amendment would be a snap."
Well, I don't think so. I've never seen any proposed amendment that doesn't appear to ban pretty much all abortions. Although I favor a complete ban on abortion, I don't believe that's in the cards anytime soon (50 year? 100 years? Second Coming?).
You're not going to get 60% to go for a total ban of abortion. I never said you would.
But you'd get 60% to go for, say, almost total ban of third trimester abortions (not permitted under Roe). You'd get way more than 60% to go for a ban of partial birth abortion with only a life of the mother exception (already rejected by the Supreme Court, holding under Roe, in the Nebraska case).
I daresay, you might get majorities to go along with requiring spousal consent (absolutely verboten under Roe).
You might also get large majorities to go along with significant restrictions, close to a ban, on second trimester abortions (definitely, absolutely forbidden under Roe).
You'd get large majorities to ban abortion for purposes of sex selection, or eye color selection, etc., probably right back to some time shortly after conception (definitely, absolutely, totally forbidden under Roe).
You'd get large majorities to ban abortion as birth control from some time shortly after conception (certainly and completely banned by Roe, in fact, use as "back up" birth control is more or less cited as a reason for holding Roe).
These questions have been polled on at one time or other, and they have have received majority support.
What Roe covers is not held by the majority of Americans.
But heck, let's try it out!
Let's hold them to their promises, and get the President and Republican Senate to appoint Justices who will merely overturn Roe, and let the PEOPLE decide.
What are you guys worried about? That the people might agree more with us nutjob pro-lifers?
LOL.
sitetest
That is just wrong.
This indicates that you are willing to make the evidence fit the assertion.
This is really quite funny:-)
But, I digress.
"Extreme circumstances" was not an option given.
Dear Cold Heat,
Although the Supreme Court has not taken up the federal partial birth abortion ban, every state partial birth abortion ban has so far been struck down by the courts, and the Supreme Court has held that Roe did not permit Nebraska's ban of partial birth abortions.
As so far interpreted by the courts, Roe does not permit a ban of partial birth abortions.
Yet, very large majorities of the American people favor such a ban.
Looks like very large majorities of the American people don't agree with what Roe mandates.
sitetest
Eternal life, of course.
So you are in favor of living eternal/forever in the flesh here on Earth -- not in a spirit world sans physical body -- but here on Earth in your physical body?
Dear Cold Heat,
"Natural law my butt."
What are you talking about? Do you know anything about Justice Thomas.
Anyway, do you like Justices Scalia and Thomas? Would you accept three or four more?
sitetest
Good points.
Dear Cold Heat,
I can add them together if both groups hold for results that violate Roe, and I am merely trying to make the point that Roe must be overturned.
I haven't once held that most Americans would accept a complete ban on abortion.
I have held that most Americans disagree with the results of Roe, which mandates just about unrestricted abortion on demand.
sitetest
Sure, the appeals courts are brimming over with challenges. These challenges are normal and have yet to work their way though.
That brings us back to the Supreme Court.
You know, that any judge who has uttered in public any opinion about Roe, will not get through the Congress. So, forgetaboutit!
We need judges! Not friggin activists.
Drop the pretenses and just say that you want advocate activists on the court.
That is what you want, but it will not happen.
Spector is right about that. It might be the only thing he is right about.
Absolutely!
You equate Social Security, Medicare and the Income tax with abortion? How can you expect your criticisms to be taken seriously by Christian conservatives on this thread?
Dear Cold Heat,
"'Would you accept three or four more?'
"Absolutely!"
Well, then the sum of your posts is just about self-contradicting.
You have argued strenuously against overturning Roe.
Yet, you express favor for two Justices who would certainly overturn Roe.
And you would "absolutely" accept three or four more.
Your posts, in sum, are irrational.
Nice chatting.
sitetest
The problem resides in the lack of the exception clause regarding rape, incest and health.
It is the health clause that needs court limitations, and I believe that can be done without violating Roe.
The Nebraska case is a good example of this. Without the clause, it is deemed unconstitutional, but if the health portion was clarified and restricted, it might well be possible to pass all of these restrictions.
I think the majority would approve as well.
Dear JeffAtlanta,
"Anytime anything is banned in the US, it is still generally available for life saving procedures."
Not quite.
Organ stealing is (for now) banned. Even if you need to steal someone's organ to save your own life.
In the meanwhile, in various polls, large majorities have answered that they would endorse specific restrictions on abortions that would be impermissible under Roe.
Roe's gotta go!
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.