P
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
He did avoid the pro-death moniker.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
As I've said elsewhere, I hang out with a lot of liberals and have never met anyone who is "pro-abortion." Strangely, none of them picket maternity wards or shoot obstetricians in the head. I have not heard of anyone saying it should be mandatory to counsel expectant mothers on the benefits of abortion. I'd be very interested in meeting them.Yes, though I would choose the term "ironic." It also is "funny" to me that people who are most stridently pro-abortion often are equally strident against the death penalty!
I don't have firm views one way or the other on the "debate" except at the very end of term....if it could live on its own unassisted, then it is a human life; if it needs mechanical assistance to survive on its own, I punt and waffle and try to avoid an answer one way or the other. I do think much of the "debate" is actually on the wrong part of the broader "issue": were people to be more thoughtful at the outset, using abortion as retroactive birth control would not be such a big deal since those fetuses never would have been conceived in the first place. Especially now with the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases being so high and the consequences potentially so dire.
Now, if all the parents of pro-abortion advocates were as strident as their offspring, perhaps we wouldn't have such a debate, eh?
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
You're not looking hard enough. Packs of hippies go around malls and shove pregnant women down the escalators.
You're not looking hard enough. Packs of hippies go around malls and shove pregnant women down the escalators.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
Are you disingenuous or merely naive? If a person "chooses" to have a baby, why is that "choice" ridiculed and held up for mockery and contempt? Pro-"choice" people really do respect that as a "choice"? not from what I've seen heard or read.
Like I said, I don't have a horse in this race one way or the other. I merely have little patience with deliberate obfuscation. People who say they are pro-"choice" are not saying they are in favor of any choice, are they? Isn't it only one particular choice that they consistently advocate?
Are you disingenuous or merely naive? If a person "chooses" to have a baby, why is that "choice" ridiculed and held up for mockery and contempt? Pro-"choice" people really do respect that as a "choice"? not from what I've seen heard or read.
Like I said, I don't have a horse in this race one way or the other. I merely have little patience with deliberate obfuscation. People who say they are pro-"choice" are not saying they are in favor of any choice, are they? Isn't it only one particular choice that they consistently advocate?
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
Facts are so inconvenient. I don't mind calling it what it is so much as I mind finding ways to sugar-coat it and pretend it's something different.
Life really sucks sometimes, and sometimes we have no good options, no matter which way you turn, they all s*ck.
I've always said that terminating a pregnancy early is way better than fifteen years of child abuse. Better than either is using pre-emptive birth control instead of retroactive birth control (and don't give me the exceptions, there are not 100,000 pregnancies caused by rape each year).
By the way, just about every pro-life person I know has adopted. I can respect that kind of consistency.
The term "pro-life" is polemical while the term "pro-choice" is bovine fecal matter. The whole -- the only original -- point was that if the Supremes had never issued a ruling in Roe vs Wade in the first place, we would not be having this debate today. The issue would have been settled through negotiation and compromise and everyone would have grudgingly agreed on a consensus because everyone's voice would have been heard in debate. The Supremes short-circuited that debate and cut short the process and because of that the debate continues.
Go to any Planned Parenthood office. While it may not be "mandatory" they sure do find a way to terminate hundreds of thousands of pregnancies each year, don't they?
Facts are so inconvenient. I don't mind calling it what it is so much as I mind finding ways to sugar-coat it and pretend it's something different.
Life really sucks sometimes, and sometimes we have no good options, no matter which way you turn, they all s*ck.
I've always said that terminating a pregnancy early is way better than fifteen years of child abuse. Better than either is using pre-emptive birth control instead of retroactive birth control (and don't give me the exceptions, there are not 100,000 pregnancies caused by rape each year).
By the way, just about every pro-life person I know has adopted. I can respect that kind of consistency.
The term "pro-life" is polemical while the term "pro-choice" is bovine fecal matter. The whole -- the only original -- point was that if the Supremes had never issued a ruling in Roe vs Wade in the first place, we would not be having this debate today. The issue would have been settled through negotiation and compromise and everyone would have grudgingly agreed on a consensus because everyone's voice would have been heard in debate. The Supremes short-circuited that debate and cut short the process and because of that the debate continues.
Last edited:
P
Priceless
Guest
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
What do you call people who use "the rhythm method" as a form of birth control?
Parents!
What do you call people who use "the rhythm method" as a form of birth control?
Parents!
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
Ah, I see you chose "disingenuous." About what I'd expect from a college sophomore.
Ah, I see you chose "disingenuous." About what I'd expect from a college sophomore.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
There are posters who are completely rational except for one issue. We've seen it with immigration. I think we may be witnessing it with reproductive rights.
(Personally, do not try to engage me in an objective conversation about Fred Wilpon. It aint happenin'. I fully admit I am completely irrational on it.)
There are posters who are completely rational except for one issue. We've seen it with immigration. I think we may be witnessing it with reproductive rights.
(Personally, do not try to engage me in an objective conversation about Fred Wilpon. It aint happenin'. I fully admit I am completely irrational on it.)
jmh
win or lose, we booze
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
Wait, what? Who is ridiculed and mocked for choosing to have a baby? I'm in the age range where a lot of my friends are having kids, and I can't recall hearing any of them mocked for not getting an abortion.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
I was curious about abortion history after reading your comments. It seems like the debate has been going on forever. Interesting how it's changed and stayed the same.
Earliest recorded abortion was in 3000 BC Egypt. And it seems the ancients differentiated.
http://facts.randomhistory.com/2008/12/14_abortion.html
Even the Catholic Church seems to have had different position depending on the Pope and the time period (every century since 3rd AD). It seems abortion before "quickening" (40days or so) was ok because the unborn had "vegetative" soul, And the church flipped back and forth from the soul at conception to soul after "quickening".
I was curious about abortion history after reading your comments. It seems like the debate has been going on forever. Interesting how it's changed and stayed the same.
Earliest recorded abortion was in 3000 BC Egypt. And it seems the ancients differentiated.
http://facts.randomhistory.com/2008/12/14_abortion.html
Even the Catholic Church seems to have had different position depending on the Pope and the time period (every century since 3rd AD). It seems abortion before "quickening" (40days or so) was ok because the unborn had "vegetative" soul, And the church flipped back and forth from the soul at conception to soul after "quickening".
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
I'm 43 and have Master of Science Degree. Try again.
I'm 43 and have Master of Science Degree. Try again.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
Duggers? And if they can afford that many kids, more power to them.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
bolded part is flat out false. Immigration is placed solely in the hands of the federal government. Someone's either allowed into the U.S. or not; someone can't be allowed in Nebraska but banned from Arizona. Also, when Congress decides something ambiguously, who do you suppose gets to try to interpret what they mean? And who gets to decide if ICE is properly carrying out Congress's wishes? Hmm, perhaps someone with the ability to hear facts and interpret the law accordingly. Maybe even making a judgment call, perhaps.
To answer the question about when a state constitution conflicts with the federal, the answer is it depends on how it conflicts. A state constitution can grant more freedoms/privileges than the federal one (many states give its citizens the right to hunt, for instance), but cannot provide less. So in the hypothetical case of establishing a state religion, that would violate numerous provisions of the U.S. Constitution, giving SCOTUS jurisdiction. But in the case of a state constitution provision that is not affected by any form of federal law, SCOTUS won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Iowa has had a recent string of cases where the state supreme court has ruled, SCOTUS has overturned saying that doesn't violate the federal constitution, and the state supreme court says "that's fine, but under the Iowa Constitution it's still wrong."
And Kepler, there are a whole bunch of stat packages available on scotusblog.
bolded part is flat out false. Immigration is placed solely in the hands of the federal government. Someone's either allowed into the U.S. or not; someone can't be allowed in Nebraska but banned from Arizona. Also, when Congress decides something ambiguously, who do you suppose gets to try to interpret what they mean? And who gets to decide if ICE is properly carrying out Congress's wishes? Hmm, perhaps someone with the ability to hear facts and interpret the law accordingly. Maybe even making a judgment call, perhaps.
To answer the question about when a state constitution conflicts with the federal, the answer is it depends on how it conflicts. A state constitution can grant more freedoms/privileges than the federal one (many states give its citizens the right to hunt, for instance), but cannot provide less. So in the hypothetical case of establishing a state religion, that would violate numerous provisions of the U.S. Constitution, giving SCOTUS jurisdiction. But in the case of a state constitution provision that is not affected by any form of federal law, SCOTUS won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Iowa has had a recent string of cases where the state supreme court has ruled, SCOTUS has overturned saying that doesn't violate the federal constitution, and the state supreme court says "that's fine, but under the Iowa Constitution it's still wrong."
And Kepler, there are a whole bunch of stat packages available on scotusblog.
Last edited:
WeWantMore
New member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
Without wading into any of the prior 3 pages, I think it's worth pointing out that you can think abortion ought to be legal, and think Roe is a pretty poor decision. As do Bader Ginsburg, Tribe, and Sunstein, among others.
Without wading into any of the prior 3 pages, I think it's worth pointing out that you can think abortion ought to be legal, and think Roe is a pretty poor decision. As do Bader Ginsburg, Tribe, and Sunstein, among others.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"
It's an interesting moral (legal?) question. with the modern technology and testing you can tell a lot about the fetus.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508/ns/world_news/t/china-grapples-legacy-its-missing-girls/
How about abortion (gendercide) in China. The farmers practiced female infanticide under the 1 child policy since 80's but now the middle class is using ultrasound and abortion, 120 boys per 100 girls
It's an interesting moral (legal?) question. with the modern technology and testing you can tell a lot about the fetus.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953508/ns/world_news/t/china-grapples-legacy-its-missing-girls/
How about abortion (gendercide) in China. The farmers practiced female infanticide under the 1 child policy since 80's but now the middle class is using ultrasound and abortion, 120 boys per 100 girls
- Status