Ladies, get your abortions NOW!!

[reeds]

Roe vs. Wade- forget about it....I personally dont believe in abortion, but I do believe it is the woman's right to choose- no one elses..with Roberts in, your choices just shrunk- to none.. "I have no agenda" My AZZZZZ



Roberts: 'I have no agenda'
Partisan divide clear on first day of hearings for Supreme Court nominee
Judge John Roberts stands to be sworn in Monday at his Senate confirmation hearings to be the 17th chief justice of the United States.
NBC News


Updated: 5:20 p.m. ET Sept. 12, 2005
WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Monday that justices are servants of the law, playing a limited government role, as the Senate opened confirmation hearings on President Bush¡¯s choice to be the nation¡¯s 17th chief justice.

¡°A certain humility should characterize the judicial role,¡± the 50-year-old Roberts told the Judiciary Committee in a brief statement. ¡°Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around.¡±

The appellate judge likened judges to baseball umpires, saying that ¡°they make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.¡±

Story continues below ¡ý


The drama of Roberts¡¯ swearing-in and his short statement capped a half day in which Democrats and Republicans sparred over the legitimacy of questioning him about divisive issues. Arguments about ideology and judicial activism also marked the hours devoted to opening statements from the 18-member panel.

Speaking without notes, Roberts addressed the committee for about five minutes ¡ª half the time each of 18 senators had been allotted for opening statements before he took the oath and made his remarks. He will answer questions from senators at much greater length on Tuesday.

¡°I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform,¡± Roberts told the panel.

Before Roberts addressed the panel, Senate Democrats and Republicans sparred over the appropriateness of including a wide range of questions over potentially divisive issues as a litmus test for the qualification of Roberts.

For Democrats, no slam-dunk
In their opening statements, Democrats on the committee gave notice that Roberts¡¯ confirmation would be no slam-dunk.

¡°The Senate was not intended to be a rubber stamp for nominees to the Supreme Court,¡± said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. ¡°Judges are appointed by and with the advise and consent of the Senate.¡±

Kennedy acknowledged the professional qualities of Roberts, but said ¡°they do not end the inquiry or our responsibility to determine whether you have demonstrated a commitment to the constitutional principles that have been so vital in advancing fairness, decency and equal opportunity in our society.¡±

¡°We have only one chance to get it right,¡± he said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., placed the hearings, and the nominee, in a historical perspective. ¡°As the youngest nominee to the high court's top seat in 204 years, you have the potential to wield more influence over the lives of the citizens of this country than any jurist in history,¡± Schumer said. ¡°I cannot think of a more awesome responsibility.¡±

¡°Here is what the American people need to know beyond your resume: They need to know that an overachiever can identify with an underdog,¡± Schumer said. ¡°They need to know ¡ª above all ¡ª that if you take stewardship of the high court, you will not steer it so far out of the mainstream that it founders in the shallow waters of extremist ideology.¡±

Partisan sparring begins
Republicans advised Roberts against responding to probing questions on controversial topics.

¡°No reasonable person expects you to make promises to politicians about how you'll rule¡± on hot-button issues, said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

The senator advised Roberts: ¡°Don't take the bait. Do exactly the same thing every nominee, Republican and Democrat alike, has done. Decline to answer any question you feel would compromise your ability to do your job. The vast majority of the Senate, I am convinced, will not punish you for doing so.¡±

¡°Some compare a nominee¡¯s refusal to violate his judicial oath or abandon judicial ethics to taking the Fifth Amendment," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "These might be catchy sound bites, but they are patently false.¡±

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., indicted that abortion rights were a crucial issue for her.

¡°For me, one of the most important issues that needs to be addressed by you is the constitutional right to privacy. ... It would be very difficult ¡ª I said this to you privately and I say so publicly ¡ª for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I knew would overturn Roe v. Wade,¡± she said.

A family affair
The hearings began with Roberts introducing family members, who were seated behind him in the Senate Caucus Room, a hall that has seen a range of historic hearings, including Clarence Thomas¡¯ confirmation hearings in 1991 and the Watergate hearings.

Roberts introduced his parents, siblings, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, and his young children, Jack and Josie.

¡°You see she has a very tight grasp,¡± Roberts said of his wife, who held the two children. An ebullient Jack Roberts nearly upstaged his father when the president announced his nomination on July 19.

The hearing ended for the day after Roberts' statement. It will resume Tuesday morning with senators questioning the nominee. The high court begins its new term on Oct. 3.

Specter sets the stakes
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the committee chairman, underscored the stakes in the Senate¡¯s vote on Roberts, Bush¡¯s choice to succeed the late William H. Rehnquist.

¡°If confirmed, Judge Roberts will become our nation¡¯s highest ranking judicial officer with the extraordinary opportunity to lead the Supreme Court and guide the administration of justice in America for decades,¡± Specter said.

Republicans and Democrats see no serious obstacle to Roberts¡¯ confirmation. Liberal, civil rights, civil libertarian and abortion rights groups have come out against him but not one of the Senate¡¯s 100 members has declared opposition.

[LRB]

Seems to me if a woman consents to sex or other means of impregnation, then he's had her choice. If the woman didn't consent to sex or the means by which she was impregnated, then I'm all for giving her the choice to abort the fetus, although I would hope that she wouldn't. I don't have any problem giving the woman the choice to abort the fetus when her life is in severe jeaporady if she doesn't. However these are a very minor number of the abortions performed each year. The women who fall into these categories probably don't have much to worry about.

However those women who have consenting sexual relations and later find themselves pregnant, may indeed have some problems when they wish to abort because they now decide they don't like the consequences of their previous choice.

It really seems that the abortion issue is about 5% or less the right of women to have a choice, and about 95% or more the right of women to escape some of the consequences of their choice. Of course we're not just talking about 1 life here, but at least 2. That's something that's often forgotten by the pro-abortionists zeal to remove accountability for choices.

[reeds]

"Seems to me" is the key..its not up to you..you are totally intitled to your opinion but every woman should have her own choice- regardless of how or why she is pregnant to begin with...

[LRB]

Originally posted by: reeds
"Seems to me" is the key..its not up to you..you are totally intitled to your opinion but every woman should have her own choice- regardless of how or why she is pregnant to begin with...

No as an eligible voter I have a say and an obligation in protecting the the new life. Just because you make a poor choice, doesn't mean you should have the choice to extinguish another life to make your own life more convenient. Once your choice begins to affect the rights of another then you lose the ability to make that choice without being held accountable by our society. In fact, if a woman wished to kill herself, that is outlawed as well.

This is not about choice, it's about freedom from accountability. It's about freedom to extinguish another life without consequences. The lie, and it is a huge one, that it's about choice has been told for years but it doen't make it true.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
No as an eligible voter I have a say and an obligation in protecting the the new life. Just because you make a poor choice, doesn't mean you should have the choice to extinguish another life to make your own life more convenient. Once your choice begins to affect the rights of another then you lose the ability to make that choice without being held accountable by our society. In fact, if a woman wished to kill herself, that is outlawed as well.

This is not about choice, it's about freedom from accountability. It's about freedom to extinguish another life without consequences. The lie, and it is a huge one, that it's about choice has been told for years but it doen't make it true.

that new "life" doesn't exist according to the law you are attempting to extend to it. they don't give Birth Certificates to fetus or embryo.

I've got an hypothetic from the other angle. Let's say that you had consensual sex, and you unfortunately were given a disease. But because you need to be "held accountable" for that decision, you cannot be given any medicine to cure your malady and your dingus falls off. you were "held accountable", and even tho society could correct it you sir are SOL.

fair? I don't think so...

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: reeds
"Seems to me" is the key..its not up to you..you are totally intitled to your opinion but every woman should have her own choice- regardless of how or why she is pregnant to begin with...

Women should get a choice.

But the way I've always seen it, women always do a choice. Women have the choice whether or not to have unprotected sex with another man. If a woman is raped, that's a different story... but I don't think it's fair that the children shouldn't have to pay for the adult's irresponsibility.

[LRB]

that new "life" doesn't exist according to the law you are attempting to extend to it. they don't give Birth Certificates to fetus or embryo.

No the new life is not given the full set of privaledges, rights and protection accorded to a humun being, but neither is it just a collection of chemicals without rights alltogether and protection alltogether.

I've got an hypothetic from the other angle. Let's say that you had consensual sex, and you unfortunately were given a disease. But because you need to be "held accountable" for that decision, you cannot be given any medicine to cure your malady and your dingus falls off. you were "held accountable", and even tho society could correct it you sir are SOL.

fair? I don't think so...

This has got to be about the most stupid hypothetical example I've ever read. This is night and day different. Mainly because there is no fetus involved. This would be about the same as me saying a woman has a child that is 2 years old, the child throws a temper tantrum when the woman is doing some work at home so she cuts it's head off to slience it. She is able to do this without repercussion from the law because a woman should always have a choice.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

This has got to be about the most stupid hypothetical example I've ever read. This is night and day different. Mainly because there is no fetus involved. This would be about the same as me saying a woman has a child that is 2 years old, the child throws a temper tantrum when the woman is doing some work at home so she cuts it's head off to slience it. She is able to do this without repercussion from the law because a woman should always have a choice.

no, not anywhere close.

the 2 year old is born, recognized as a living being and is protected by the state.

looks like you were able to trump my supposed "most stupid hypothetical example" with one of your own.

[u2sarajevo]

*sigh*

[reeds]

"No as an eligible voter I have a say and an obligation in protecting the the new life."

You have a say- but thats it..NO one has a say unless they are the one pregnant! Period..No law should tell a woman if she is or is not having a baby...

[Mavdog]

ok, ok, no long abortion rights thread. i will not continue.

I have no problem confirming Roberts. I do not feel he is out to change anything, he is a legal scholar who understands the tradition of the position he will occupy.

Roberts is an individual who will labor to honor those who have served before him. He may be a bit more on the conservative side than I would like, but he will endeavor to be the best judge he can be.

[EricaLubarsky]

this just in-- G-d punished New Orleans for promiscuity and abortion

part 1
part 2

[dude1394]

I am sure that the founding fathers just overlooked that basic human right...the right for a woman to have the brains sucked out of an inconvenient baby as long as it is still attached via the umbilical cord. Or instead tear it limb from limb if they can't get at the head first.

I'm sure they just left that one out, the dems just found it somewhere...??

Look if we want to leaglize abortion then legalize it. Quit trying to get some wacky judge to make rights up out of whole clotrh.

[EricaLubarsky]

The real problem I have on the issue is that both sides are playing politics with a position in which the judges are never democratically elected, and are appointed for life. Polls say that only about 36% of americans believe that abortion should be illegal across the board. If Americans voted on the issue, we would only assume that abortion would remain legal, but instead we see someone appointing a judge for life that sees things the way the president does which is against the popular will of the people.

Actually I dont even see abortion as a question of rights at all-- not on par with the right to speech, etc. Both sides play that to strengthen their argument but I just don't see it as something that should even be determined by the supreme court. States all take care of the vast majority of murder cases. Personal safety and medical choice is not for the large part a written, federal right. The supreme court managing the issue of abortion is on par with the 18th and 21st amendments to the constitution-- an issue of morality, that both religious and nonreligious people get behind that is absolutely ridiculous to decide at the level of the constitution and supreme court.

Right to life? That could go either way. The political studies available link illegal abortions to increased mortality because of botched back-alley abortions. You can also link abortion directly to the death of what some consider human life. Which one takes precedence?

[reeds]

Great point Erica

[LRB]

Originally posted by: reeds
"No as an eligible voter I have a say and an obligation in protecting the the new life."

You have a say- but thats it..NO one has a say unless they are the one pregnant! Period..No law should tell a woman if she is or is not having a baby...

Says you reeds, but fortunately that is not the case, all voters get to have some say directly or more likely indirectly in this. The trouble with the liberal proabortionists is they don't distinguish between a bucket of crap, a pile of trash, some old news papers, or a fetus. In fact they think that cats, dogs, and even hamsters should have more protection under the law than a human fetus. Even mass murders, rapists, and child molesters have tons more rights in there eyes than a fetus which has yet to do one wrong thing. That's not only sad but highly pathetic.

[EricaLubarsky]

[img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

just because someone wants a fully-developed, citizen the right to choose whether or not she wants to develop a seed into a human, doesnt mean that they think that a fetus is a bacteria. Give me a break. All you (all) can do beyond the preliminary argument is appeal to ever increasing levels of sappy, over-the-top language.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog



no, not anywhere close.

the 2 year old is born, recognized as a living being and is protected by the state.

looks like you were able to trump my supposed "most stupid hypothetical example" with one of your own.

No they were about equally stupid, as neither were a good analogy but each differed a different extreme. In yours you tried to make the analogy that a fetus was nothing more than a virus or bacteria. In my I made the analogy of a fetus being like a child. Actually I don't think mine was quite as dumb as yours, but it was close.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't put the fetus life on par with a mothers if medical conditions conflict those two lives. But I certainly don't think that a fetus should be without rights alltogether either. When the abortion is no more than a choice for convenience, then I think the fetus's rights should prevail.

[FishForLunch]

Yes ladies get an abortions and the democrats will praise you for your sacrifice and noble deed.

[EricaLubarsky]

I dont know what is so funny about that statement-- maybe the ridiculousness of it or maybe the ignorance, but I got a good chuckle.

Yes all liberals are pro-choice and all pro-choicers not only like the idea of abortion but want everyone to have one.

[Rhylan]

I didn't know the government had to give me a piece of paper to make me be alive. Sure am glad I live in America and have a birth certificate.

[capitalcity]

Abortions tickle.

[dalmations202]

I guess I will enter into the fray here (although I probably shouldn't -- it won't change the views of anyone -- BUT...).

The issue is not "choice".... it is the value of human life.

Pro-Choice people say that the choice of the "woman" is more important the the "life" inside her.
Pro - Life people put the life before the choice.

Question for all Pro-Choice people. If the governement decided that it was OK to make your own decision to kill your children under the age of 5.......... would that make it OK? If the government made a law saying that white males weren't actually a viable citizen till they were 18 years old, and you have the "right" to do with them as you please till then? Oh, well, what if it isn't the government who should decide that this decision should be made, but individuals? What if me, as an individual, decides that you have to be over 40 before I consider you a viable person, SO you shouldn't have a problem if I go up and put a bullet in your head correct -- if you are under 40 that is? ? ?

It is all under the same logic. <u> If you can justify in your mind that you can take an innocent life, born or unborn, then I can logically justify killing you with the same logic -- all I need is for "man's law" to change. </u>

You are a Hypocrit to believe in Pro-Choice. You are totally PO'd when someone blows up an abortion clinic, but yet they did this with the same logic (reversed) that the people did there in killing the fetus. Both are wrong.............

There is no logic, Christian belief, or value in life in abortion, and it is a totally Satanic ritual imposed by a people who are self-centered instead of "Christ-like" and worried about the needs of others.

[LRB]

Dalmations one of major differences between a fetus and a child not wanted is that it is fairly easy to separate a child from it's mother without the likely possibility of doing physical damage to the child or the mother. With a fetus this is not the case. But in most cases it is highly unlikely that a mother will suffer any significant and/or lasting physical damage from bring a fetus to term. However even if a fetus was removed from the mother without purposefully damaging it, it's highly likely the fetus would suffer significant and lasting physical damage and very likely death. In most cases it's a woman's inconvience for a few months, versus ending a new life. That's not all cases, but it's most. Other cases should be considered separately IMO, as should cases where the woman did not consent to under going sex or impregnation. But those again are a very small amount of the abortions performed.

The problem arrises with the wish of extreme pro-choice groups to treat a fetus as no more than a lump of clay in rights until it is considered "born". So if a man stabs a pregant woman in the stomach and "kills" the fetus, he shouldn't be charged for more than assault with a deadly weapon on the woman. No charges, according to these extremists should be brought for destroying a "lifeless" fetus, even if said fetus was due to be delivered later that very day. Because to give an "unborn" fetus rights would jeapodized the right of women to "choose".

Of course there is something inherently different with a fetus or embryo than other inanimate objects. No other object has ever been know to produce a living, breathing, and thinking human being. There is probably more than a millions times the things that our science doesn't understand about embryo's and fetus' than that which it does. But certainly the fact that a fetus produces a living, breathing, and thinking human being when allowed to be brought to term should afford it some measure of protection and rights under the law. Not only morals and Christian values back this up, but logic and reason as well. If we are truely a society that values life, rights of the individual, and freedom to make your own choices, then a fetus should have at a minimum a special recognition under that law and rights to protect it from others. We at least grant something like this for animals with laws protecting them from cruelty and also limiting use of private and personal proterty if it might possibly endanger the habitat of an animal. Even plants often have protection under the law. To me it is high hypocrisy for our Nation to grant these rights to organisms of lower intelligence, but to deny at least the same or greated to that which will become the highest form of intelligence on this planet.

[Usually Lurkin]

Other great headlines from history:

Owners, beat, sell or kill your slaves now, while you have a chance. They're about to receive papers that give them rights.
Husbands, beat your wives with that thumb-thick rod while it's still legal!
Husbands, get your sex now while you can, the courts are about to rule that no means no.


A society that is willing to kill it's own children for the sake of convenience is about as barbaric as it can get.

[kg_veteran]

Erica - From a legal standpoint, I agree with you. It should be (and was, before Roe v. Wade) an issue for each state to decide. The Supreme Court had no business creating the "right to privacy," and the only reason that it did so was to invalidate state laws which made abortion a crime.

Would such laws be kept on the books and/or passed at a state level if Roe v. Wade was wiped off the books by the United States Supreme Court? I suspect that they would, in some form or fashion.

LRB - I understand your position on rape, but I respectfully disagree with it. Why should the child be killed when it was his father who committed the crime?

reeds - You said, "I personally dont believe in abortion..." Why not?

[kg_veteran]

Thought I'd add this article to the discussion...



July 27, 2005
Roe v. Wade v. Technology
By Tony Blankley
link

As the John Roberts' Supreme Court nomination fight opens, the predicted battle to save or kill Roe v Wade already has taken to the streets, the Internet and the media. But the 32-year-old constitutional right to an abortion may face its gravest challenge not from red state values triumphing on the Supreme Court, but from medical research being carried out in elite blue state universities and in Europe and Asia.

It is the very language of Roe that carries the seed of its own possible irrelevance within the next several years. Roe enunciated the more or less unencumbered right of a woman to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability. After viability, the right of states to regulate or prohibit abortions arise. The court defined legal viability as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."

But medical science is remorselessly advancing on two fronts along paths that may fairly soon seize and destroy in a scientific pincer movement the viability of Roe's reasoning.

When Roe was handed down in 1973, the survivability of prematurely born babies was not medically possible before 28 weeks of gestation. Today, babies born after only 20 weeks of gestation routinely survive -- and thus are viable under the Roe definition (and thus potentially legally safe from the abortionist's medical weapons).

But radical research may soon reduce that 20 weeks to just a few -- or perhaps no weeks. At Juntendo University of Tokyo, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara and his team of scientists have successfully removed goat fetuses from mother goats and placed them in tanks of amniotic fluid stabilized at goat body temperature, while connecting the baby goat's umbilical cord to machines that pump in nutrients and dispose of waste.

The purpose of Dr. Kuwabara's research is to provide a safe home for human fetuses prematurely expelled from the mother's womb. According to the British Guardian newspaper, it is expected that such methods capable of sustaining a child for the full nine months "will become reality in a few years."

Meanwhile, at Cornell University's Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Dr. Hung-Ching Liu and her team of scientists have been approaching the problem of fetal out-of-womb survival from the other side. She is developing a full artificial womb that can receive a just-conceived embryo -- with the hope that it will successfully gestate for the full nine months.

Her team's method is to remove cells from the mother's endometrium (the lining the womb), and grow those cells in a hormones-and-growth-enzymes "bath." Then they let the cells rapidly grow on a scaffold made of biodegradable material molded in the shape of a uterus, into which she plants the embryo. By this method Dr. Liu has already successfully kept alive a brand-new human embryo/fetus for six days -- after which she voluntarily ended the fetus's existence to comply with current medical ethics regulations.

While Dr. Kuwabara's technology is being designed for normal pregnancies cut short by miscarriages, Dr. Liu's technologies will have special appeal to homosexual couples who want to have a child, as well as women with defective wombs and women who just can't be bothered to be pregnant (although the first few minutes of such pregnancies might still be valued for extraneous reasons).

But both, or either technology, once routinely available, could have a profound, if unintended, effect on the constitutional right of abortion. Once such technologies make it medically possible for a fetus to be "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid" the language of Roe v Wade will not have to be overturned. It could stay on the books as legally valid, but factually meaningless.

Of course the irony of all this cut so many ways, it is hard to count. A technology designed to help homosexual couples and radical feminists have wombless babies may come into the service of conservatives (who oppose homosexual marriage and feminist values) as a means of ending abortion.

Cutting the other way, it is the technology of stem cell research and cloning (which many right-to-life conservatives want to outlaw) that may be needed to develop a technology that could be used to effectively legally end abortion -- thus creating for such conservatives the moral dilemma of supporting the use of what they judge to be unethical or immoral technologies to end the greatest slaughter of the innocent (millions of abortions a year).

These emerging technologies give academic ethicists (as well as the rest of us amateur ethicists) plenty to think about. Remember, in Aldous Huxley's disturbingly prescient "Brave New World," the normal people were genetically cloned and gestated in artificial wombs, while the savages living in remote locations were the only ones who still naturally conceived, carried their own babies and then breast-fed them. The "normal" cloned people thought the natural people were animals to procreate naturally. As it always has in history, the definition of normal is subject to unexpected and seemingly abnormal change.

And, it would seem, that advancing medical and genetic technologies will benefit conservatives and liberals in a promiscuous manner.

©2005 Creators Syndicate

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Erica - From a legal standpoint, I agree with you. It should be (and was, before Roe v. Wade) an issue for each state to decide. The Supreme Court had no business creating the "right to privacy," and the only reason that it did so was to invalidate state laws which made abortion a crime.

Would such laws be kept on the books and/or passed at a state level if Roe v. Wade was wiped off the books by the United States Supreme Court? I suspect that they would, in some form or fashion.

LRB - I understand your position on rape, but I respectfully disagree with it. Why should the child be killed when it was his father who committed the crime?

reeds - You said, "I personally dont believe in abortion..." Why not?

In point of fact, California legalized it four years before Roe. So if the court hadn't created a right out of whole cloth I could easily see it moving across the country via the more liberal states.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: dude1394
In point of fact, California legalized it four years before Roe. So if the court hadn't created a right out of whole cloth I could easily see it moving across the country via the more liberal states.

Exactly. Of course, then the issue would properly be decided by a state legislature (made up of elected representatives).