This story is archived
The Misplaced Jubilance of the Anti-Abortion Right »
Posted by: populist 2 years, 2 months agoTraditional small government conservatives suddenly become big government legislators of morality when the abortion issue crops up. Despite the absence of any Constitutional evidence of Congressional authority, the typical cries of Judicial Activism are curiously absent when the Court hands down a decision that flies in the face of Roe v Wade.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 332
-
populist
April 28, 2007, 11 a.m.personally i think this issue is one for "the states or the people" and not one where the federal government should be involved. Surprising how the "conservatives" are so happy about it.
-
MajJohn
April 28, 2007, 1:19 p.m.Can it be called an activist court when the ruling protects the right to live? Religion aside, lets look at the issue as an ethical issue. How ethical is it to allow a partial birth, only minutes away from complete separation from the mother, to be terminated?
Does the state have a vested interest in protecting the weakest among us? Are we to be allowed to pick and chose among the innocents who is to live and who is to die? Is not the government involved in Roe vs. Wade?
No matter how one feels about abortion, it was an activist court that decided there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Although a personal decision for a woman to chose, should the state offer programs so that an informed decision can be made? We do it all the time, regulating advertisement, health warnings, public announcements, etc. Given that it's impossible for the state not to be involved.
Read the specious arguments, we want the horribly deformed to be born, no, we don't want the healthy killed.
-
jordan11
April 28, 2007, 11:19 a.m.I wish the writer had kept his mouth shut. Zealots wouldn't have noticed, and articles like this could give them more impetus to use more 'fear' in the 08 election. The decision wasn't about Constitutional law. It was about five Catholics on the Supreme court wanting all abortion abolished.
But it can't stop with this law;
Example: If there's going to be a law that that a child without a skull will be born to suffer until it dies, then society is now obliged to pay for the extraordinary medical care given that child, as well as pay for the funeral and the psychological after affects to the parents having to watch it happen. Too bad society (including those judges) couldn't be forced to go through the experience as well. But at the very least, children born with horrific birth defects should be guaranteed a maximum level of sustenance, & these 'pro life' fools should not be allowed to demand they live, and then turn away from their needs once they're born.
-
truthiness
April 28, 2007, 11:23 a.m.I dont think people are thinking this through clearly. This should not be a partisan issue, nor should it be seen as a black and white issue.
the argument that this is rarely done is moot.
I dont think you are really aware of what this procedure entails. I dont want to get too specific here because it is horrific. suffice it to say the baby's head is outside the mother as it is killed. often they scream as they die. there is no justification for this. there are other ways to remove the now viable baby from the mother, while protecting the mother, without murdering the child.
I am all about free choice. I am all about small govt. but some things are just wrong, and we do have a moral imperative not to allow them to continue. in the first tri-mester the child's neurological system is so underdeveloped that it can not be considered a person. at the time that these partial birth abortions are performed, the baby can survive outside the womb.
-
Amazing1
April 28, 2007, 11:31 a.m.This should be a private matter and not be in the courts at all. It should not be in the political arena at all. Medical procedures should be under the purview of the AMA or some equivalent organization. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. It's none of your business how your neighbor handles an unwanted pregnancy. And if you are a teetotaler who never ever drinks, won't you be surprised when your neighbor insists that you have a daily glass of red wine for your health?
Abortion is an issue that is so personal and potentially damaging, no matter the ultimate decision, it should not be a subject of policy for the entire population. It is never a happy choice. And I am sure, that on both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, everyone one can at least agree that it would be a good thing if the number of abortions were reduced.
-
endtyranny
April 28, 2007, 11:34 a.m.Great post, populist. It makes some good points but seems a little over confident about the Dems' chances in '08.
-
natashas
April 28, 2007, 11:47 a.m.It is a woman's choice. Woman are fully capable of making this decision. In fact some men encourage woman to have abortions. I think these politions need to have their head examined. It so easy to argue over something like womans rights then it is to change heath care cost and create employment and cut taxes. I know that their are woman out there that have abortions when they wish they could just be able to take care of their baby. My heart goes out to them. The sad part is that if they decide to have their baby no one is their to help them with their needs. If they put their child up for adoption, God knows what happens to that child, and they may never find a home.
-
truthiness
April 28, 2007, 11:51 a.m.I want people to understand what it is we're discussing here.
if we didnt legislate morality, con jobs wouldn't be illegal b/c thats capitalism at its truest- buyer beware. we wouldnt have labor laws for adults, b/c you are choosing to work those hours/ those conditions. you might argue that those are situations where one person is affecting another, but that is the argument here as well. at 7,8 months there is a person. if you can pull it part way out, you can pull it all of the way out, or have a cesarean. this, this is just murder. and we've already declared that illegal.
WARNING: THIS LINK IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC! POST PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION PHOTO!
-
truthiness
April 28, 2007, 12:10 p.m.here's the thing I dont understand. most people who are for abortion choice, are opposed to the war in Iraq on moral grounds-the useless killing for no good reason with no clear objective stated. yet I defy anyone to look at that link I posted above and tell me that this is something we as a culture should be allowing to happen. when there is nothing in the interest of the mother that could not be solved a different way at this point in the pregnancy.
-
yvonne8955
April 28, 2007, 12:43 p.m.most under-rated impact bush has had is all the court appntments. Iraq and his megalomania have distracted from that.
-
Dionys
April 28, 2007, 12:45 p.m.Here's the thing I don't understand. Most of the people who scream the loudest to legislate against a woman's choice in order to "save a life" are also the loudest proponents of guns, the loudest supporters of a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocents ("collateral damage"), the loudest supporters of the death penalty and a president who claimed to be Christian but seems to be doing the work of Satan.
Why do anti-choice zealots support the killing of other innocents but loudly deny women the right to make their own moral choices? It's not like it's an easy choice for most of these women. It's not like it's your right to determine what is right for their body. Otherwise we should also be allowed to legislate for who gets to breed.
Besides. We know you're secretly happy that all those "liberals" and "black women" aren't adding to the democratic voter pool.
-
natashas
April 28, 2007, 12:59 p.m.I am a woman. I am opposed to the war in Iraq for so many reasons. I looked at your link above. I believe men should have a say in the decision if they want their child aborted. I believe they should not make the choice. Men need to have this conversation with their partner before becoming intimate so this way they know who they are dealing with. I only agree with abortion as long as it is done within the first trimester or if their are medical reasons to where the mother and child could die and emergancy precautions need to be delt with to remove the baby. If abortion was against the law, woman would find away to perform the procedure themselves. And if you could read back to times when this procedure was not legal, some men even beet their pregnant wives to dealth because they did not want it. Men need to relize that woman make these decisions for many reasons. Men can walk away at any time. As sincere as a man could be in the beginning, that tends to change once we become pregnant!
-
truthiness
April 28, 2007, 1:26 p.m.its funny, on the political forums I'm accused of being a lib. here I'm accused of being a con.
isnt it possible I'm neither of those things? perhaps I'm just an individual who views topics based on their own merits?
-
1-2-Oscar
April 28, 2007, 1:28 p.m.A healthy society does not murder its children. Instead, it recognizes that these children are the future of their way of life. That's rather ironic, to destroy your own way of life by denying your children life.
Isn't there anything, apart from their own self-indulgence, which represents value to abortion advocates?
-
Macondo
April 28, 2007, 2:07 p.m.Abortion can not be discussed as a "Generic name."
There are many reasons for it and many methods each of them has to be analyzed separately before the law.
Therapeutic abortion the one indicated by medical reasons, should be regulated by the medical profession keeping attorneys, judges and the clergy out of it.
The non therapeutic one should be legislated and all of the above should have a voice keeping the separation between church and state.
-
ballbuster2
April 28, 2007, 2:46 p.m.partial birth abortion is nothing less than COLD BLOODED MURDER!! as for chooseing to abort an unborn child in it's first few week's, that is something the individual/couple's should have to deal with, but, the tax payer's should not have to pay the tab. i am one of those from the old school, if you play you pay all the way. but, with sever deformities, rape victim's or incest victim's then they truly should have a choice.
-
walden3
April 28, 2007, 3:05 p.m.interesting analysis on big government stepping into something that should at very worst be a state's right issue.
the other thing that is interesting is all of this space that GWB is carving out for himself as a "unitary executive" - the ability to snoopy snoop on our phone calls, banking transactions and internet and library use, the ability to lock people up indefinitely without charge, our loss of habeas, the ability of the government to engage in secret rendition and torture, forcing protesters into free speech zones. will flow to the next person who becomes president whether it's hillary clinton or kuccinich.
i wonder if the republicons support hillary clinton's right to engage in warrantless wiretaps, torture and lock people up without charge.
-
OldHickory
April 28, 2007, 3:11 p.m.I still think the answer to the problem is to make abortion retroactive for all those that support it. Let's see how many of them line up to exercise their 'choice'.
-
wildman6557
April 28, 2007, 3:40 p.m.Roe vs. Wade was one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. It should be overturned and the sooner the better. Then the states and the people can decide what to do with abortion.
Unfortunately for the Pro Life people, it probably will not go their way if South Dakota is any judge.
-
-
-
truthiness
April 28, 2007, 4:21 p.m.Among other things, the Act prohibits "knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion ... that is [not] necessary to save the life of a mother," 18 U. S. C. Ã;§1531(a). It defines "partial-birth abortion," Ã;§1531(b)(1), as a procedure in which the doctor: "(A) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the [mother's] body ... , or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the [mother's] body ... , for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus"; and "(B) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the fetus."
-
kedirian
April 28, 2007, 4:28 p.m.Having come from abroad and having lived in many countries and among many cultures, I can only say that I CONSCIOUSLY elected to become a US Citizen because in my studies of History I had never come across a country with a Constitution so wise and generous as ours - in which people are supposed to be independent, able to think for themselves, and sovereign in their individuality!
Of course, RELIGION cannot abide by the individual making up his/her own mind...
-
johnkamis64
April 29, 2007, 3:40 a.m.Libnemesis is not, and has absolutely nothing to do with any religion except that of Mammon, which means both money and power.
-
libsRfunny
June 23, 2007, 2:39 a.m."Heck there are even Atheists and non-Christian Republicans."
That's exactly what I am. You can add pro-choice Republican as well - pro-choice to an extent. I'm against partial birth abortion and glad it has been banned.
It's been proven babies can survive at that stage of development, so killing it before exiting the mother isn't an option - it's infanticide.
The first 187 comments are shown. Show all 332 comments »
Submit a Story
