It was no more a 'choice' than the Dredd Scott decision. Democrats were 'Pro Choice' on Slavery, too. I won't change my party (I am a Democrat), but I won't vote with them, either. Celebrate Victory!
2007-03-05 16:58:01 · 21 answers · asked by Raalnan5 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
BTW. If you wish to insult me, please identify your party and persuasion when you do so. I am making a presentation to a group of Black voters next week, and the short version of my thesis is that Liberals are inherently racist, and that it is most visible when they address those of US who have 'left the plantation' of Liberal thought. This site is part of my body of evidence. Don't let me down!
2007-03-05 17:05:48 · update #1
If you are going to address the issue of what a 'choice' is, please be honest. If someone chooses to come into my house and rob me at gunpoint, it is clearly their 'choice' as to whether or not they should simply take the goods and run, or leave no witnesses. Clearly, it would be in their best interests to do the latter. There are individual choices, and choices made by society. While the individual mother may have a 'choice' to make as to whether or not to go through with it, the society has a choice to make as to whether or not to make it legal. Clearly, I was inquiring about the latter.
2007-03-05 17:13:25 · update #2
Going back to the idea of the house robber. before he has entered my house, he has to some extent, declared that I, no matter who I am or what I feel, am a non-entity, I don't matter to him. The only I could matter is if I put him in danger, by being prepared, or if I get in his way, in which case, he will shoot me. The desires of the child do not matter to the mother, much in the same way. There was a time when I, as a Black man was considered a non entity by whites in America. Is there a pattern there? Public opinion on me and myu race has changed (to some extent), and as time goes on, babies are able to survive outside of the womb at younger ages. There are even pictures of infants embracing the tools that would later be used to dismember them. I have found other images of the babies trying to grab the tool as the dismemberment was taking place. Needless to say, you won't find this on the local news. It was also once illegal to teach slaves to read.
2007-03-05 17:33:33 · update #3
masterjack_98
Thanks, man, This is just what I'm looking for. Keep up the good work, and thanks for not bussin a kap in my ***!
2007-03-05 17:37:00 · update #4
While the issue was used to illustrate the point, I think the question of whether or not the unelected judges should be allowed to make 'choices' for the people is a bit larger in scope. Obviously, many of you chose to bypass the question and focus on the specifics. I can never seem to get a straight answer when I illustrate with controversial topics. It's like people hear the word 'Abortion', and from there on out, every other thing they can respond with is locked in the box of the abortion debate. I guess that's where the whole 'forest for the trees' phrase comes from. Thanks for your response, but I am not only concerned with Abortion. I do think that it is wrong, but if it were actually the peoples' choice, rather than the unelected judges', then I would back it. As it is, I would be happy to simply get people to acknowledge (whether they agree or disagree) the parallels that I am trying to make. Don't doubt the evidence, simply because you don't like what it implies.
2007-03-06 16:43:46 · update #5
dv4unme:
Judges are CONFIRMED by congress, whom we elect. They are submitted by the administration whom we elect. With that being the case, the judges are unelected.
2007-03-07 17:43:32 · update #6
Yea, why did those evil conservative Republican appointed judges make abortion's legal ??
6 republican appointed judges and 3 democrat appointed judges were on the USSC when the Roe Vs Wade decision was made.
2007-03-05 17:09:04 · answer #1 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If you are seriously concerned about limiting or eliminating abortion, write to your congressmen about requiring comprehensive sex ed for all junior high and high school students and offering socialized birth control for all ladies of child-bearing age.
Making abortion illegal will not eliminate abortion. (People do illegal things every day, in case you hadn't noticed.) So if you're genuinely motivated to stop the 'baby-killing', start looking for options that actually have some chance of success.
Sex happens, and you can preach abstinence til you're blue in the face... all evidence shows people will have sex anyway.
Girls need to know exactly what causes pregnancy (they obviously don't... just look at the questions they ask in this forum!), they need unrestricted access to affordable effective birth control and they need the education to know how to use it properly. Until such time as this becomes reality, young women will continue to end unwanted pregnancies, regardless of whether it is legal or not.
So if you really care about this problem, start by helping to be part of a REALISTIC solution.
2007-03-05 19:09:28 · answer #2 · answered by sueflower 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know this is a bland general purpose answer, but it is Congress, the legislative branch, who actually propose, debate, and pass, veto or table all prospective laws. What the judiciary does is settle legal arguments about whether or not someone did something unlawful or whether a particular action is unlawful.
It seems that the debate over abortion is far from over; in time, another group of judges may overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, but the debate will no doubt continue.
2007-03-05 17:35:15 · answer #3 · answered by and_y_knot 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The judges ruled on wether or not the United States of America had the rights to tell someone what to do with their body. They decided that if they ruled against abortion, that that would be a huge violation against a human right.
As far as your voting style, please vote the person and not the party. There are plenty of crummy people out there who may fly a certain flag, but that doesn't make them the correct man for the job. And please vote, it does matter.
***That Dredd Scott ruling has been more than overturned by now and I don't think it really relates. The Dredd Scott ruling was obviously a sign of the times; they were some horrible, horrible times for our country and it sucks that just a few decades ago we had the injustices we had against a whole race of people, but they happened and all we can do is strive to be better people and make better judgements.
**By the way, you democrats being pro-choice on slavery comment doesn't really make sense since they were obviously not pro choice, but pro the opposite of choice.
*If you'd like to chat about this through e-mail, you can reach me through this website and I would love to share my ideas
2007-03-05 17:07:00 · answer #4 · answered by Phat Kidd 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Wow, just goes to show ya what a house n i g g e r can do wit a little readin and writin....
Well if you knew what you were talkin bout you would know that the "pro choice" democrats of the 1850's were not the same pro choice democrats of the 20th century.
But you knew that didn't you, ignorant rube. I feel bad for whoever you plan on presenting to next week. They certainly deserve better.
2007-03-05 17:28:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've seen two women die from back alley abortions. You want that back? I'll bet you think Fonzie was a real guy. It became the law of the land because people thought that women had a right to do what they wanted with their own bodies. They thought that the government had no business trying to legislate morality.
Abortions will not cease just because a law forbids it. Abortions have been here since fire, if not before. It's like telling a drug addict to just say "No." They just say "Huh?" If someone is determined to get an abortion they can find a way.
2007-03-05 17:18:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Judges don't pass laws, legislatures do
Judges only interpret laws and certain levels can weigh in on the constitutionality of existing ones- where a lower law conflicts or contradicts a higher law (such as the constitution or Bill of rights)
Don't believe the buzz- Why don't legislatues propose/ debate and pass laws in regards to the issues?
2007-03-05 17:04:21 · answer #7 · answered by pavano_carl 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If by the term Baby Killing" you refer to abortion, then the choice to abort is a choice indeed. The woman can choose to abort her baby or not to abort her baby. It is not mandatory. It is a choice. She will have to live with whatever decision she makes.
As for it being legal, an unborn fetus does not have legal status as a person. In fact, the fetus is more of a possession than anything else in the legal sense. Therefore, the expectant mother may legally choose to abort the fetus.
Call it anything you want. Like it or not those are the facts.
2007-03-05 17:05:45 · answer #8 · answered by afreshpath_admin 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I am in favour of legalized abortion. I am not saying go out and do it, but the choice should be there. People make mistakes and women should not be slaves to their wombs.
However, I can be more conservative about it then some people. I don't favour partial-birth abortion or government funding for several abortions. They should pay for one and after that, only in cases of incest, assault, mental illness, life endangerment and/or severe deformity of the fetus.
2007-03-05 17:07:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The land's law is different from God's law so anything ruled on abortion by some dude in a cloak is not what i follow. I follow God's law. God Bless.
2007-03-05 17:08:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋