Alito confirmed!

[Gatekeeper]

I was being cynical, my dear Wycoff, as clearly stated in the post. If the stars align and God smiles upon this benighted species of ours, perhaps the cynism will have been for naught. Which would be fine by me.

Gatekeeper

P.S. That, or I could just use a good cuppa joe about now. That'd get me buzzing.

[Q Classic]

Gatekeeper, don't be a twit. There is no God.

...






On the other hand, there is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodly Appendage...

[Odin]

Banning abortions won't stop abortions. Rich women will just go get an abortion where it is legal, and poor women will die because of botched abortions in a back alley with coathangers or will have a baby that will end up in a gang or in an other such awful situation. This has nothing to do with life, it has everything to do with restricting the freedom of women; if these people cared about life the anti-choice people would be trying to help poor moms instead of bombing abortion clinics and waving around pictures of bloody fetuses.

[OzzyKP]

*hopes for the newly Conservative court to overturn Roe v. Wade, invalidate many uses of the Commerce Clause and then drop dead for the second coming of the Warren Court*

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Sava
God help us

[Whoha]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
When the legislation makes sense, yes. While I don't approve of abortion - except for cases of rape, the mother's life in danger, or the fetus being severely unfit (wretched deformations or diseases that will shorten its life considerably or make life an endless stream of misery) - I approve of even less the consequences of banning abortion outright. Women who want abortions will still get them, leading to more needless deaths. Women who decide to carry to term but didn't want the child in the first place will abandon them more frequently, leading to more babies-in-dumpsters and kids waiting to be adopted, many of whom will never see a stable family life. And what of the mothers who wanted an abortion because they simply couldn't support the child financially? You going to "adopt" the mother, Ben? Help her pay the bills? The state ain't going to do it, and the Christian fundies aren't going to do it either because they don't care what happens AFTER the child is born.

all they have to do is go to a state that does allow abortion.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Whoha


all they have to do is go to a state that does allow abortion.

I read somehwere that many states are planning to ban women from leaving the state to have an abortion. It's definitely unconstitutional, but it definitely shows how much the Theo-Cons value women (that is, not much).

[Whoha]

We've(this forum) discussed items like that, that may be where you read it . it just won't work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, overturning Roe would sweep the Dems into Congress in such numbers that FDR would be jealous.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Gatekeeper, don't be a twit. There is no God.

...






On the other hand, there is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his Noodly Appendage...

I'm trying to think of some sort of cosmic comeback, but it's eluding me for the time being. Hmm. Something along the lines of, "Am I a plate of origami dreaming I'm a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming I'm a human? Or am I man who needs a shot of caffeine?"

WRT the subject at hand:

Odin: You likely heard it in the news. Some states plan to make it (or have made it) a crime to take under-18 teenagers across state borders to get abortions, even if they're in the company of a guardian. The case that comes to mind involves a Missouri teen and father (her father, not the baby's father) who planned to end the pregnancy in Illinois, but ran into Missouri law. Something like that. It's in the news archives somewhere ... couldn't be more than a few months back or so.

On a related note, it'll be interesting to see how the court system deals with pharmacists who, even though they work for companies they don't own, refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill or other birth control medication because it violates their religious beliefs. If that practice is allowed to stand, I expect to see a whole lotta folks — liberals, right-wingers and everyone in-between — protesting that they have to do this or that at their jobs because it comes into conflict with morals, religion, whatever. Heh. That could lead to a fraying of society, to put it politely.

Gatekeeper

[Winston]

Of course pro-lifers care about women. Half of the abortions they are trying to prevent would stand a fair chance of one day becoming women.

Abortion is like Communism; the only ones in favour are those who haven't been subjected to it themselves.

[Q Classic]

I love analogies.

Incidentally, how would you know that those subjected to it are in favor of it or not?

But good sound bite!

[Gatekeeper]

Care involves far more than defending a child in utero until it's born, and then — for the most part — leaving it to fend for itself. That seems to be the modus operandi of, at the very least, the most vocal pro-lifers.

OTOH — and to be fair — some of the most vocal of the pro-choicers seem not to give a whit about life before birth, but after birth, it can do no wrong and must be forgiven at every avenue if and when it screws up.

Tell me, where's the fine balance point between the extremes here? Yes, life is precious. But only if it's genuinely loved. If not, it's just cannon fodder for one group or another, it seems.

Gatekeeper

[Winston]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

But good sound bite!

Of course it is. Which U.S. President of the 1980's do you think said it.

[StarLightDeath]

Just out of curiosity, can someone quote to me where in the constitution it states a right to privacy? TIA