Posted - 9/8/2012 9:22:52 PM | show profile | flag this post
cruise brought it up.
While we were talking about Clinton. "What about
the innocent children who are killed by abortion? Don't you have any regard for them?"
I tried to politely tell him that deserves a seperate topic--but he kept going.
I said "I have ALWAYS been against 'aborting a baby'. (I was a Jesuit student for Chrissakes...). But with our scientific advances, I have no problem with the removal of a zygote. Especially in the cases of rape/incest/life of the mother. I don't consider a few cells the size of a pin-head to be "innocent children"
He said "And (I'm not doubting you but) if you were a Jesuit student, you believe(d) that a human life existed at the moment of conception"
No...that's not what we believe. We believe a human being becomes a human being when they become a human being--We don't know when that is--Only God knows that--but I don't think it's when a few cells come together.
He said "But then, what about third-trimester abortions?"
Okay. I'm against that sort of tragedy. In fact, could you possibly tell me who IS in favor of that? Exactly? Especially anyone in a 'position of authority??? Yea, didn't think so.
"And if I correctly remember my catechism of many decades ago, it is the duty of the parents in such instances to choose the life of the child."
Well, it is not my job to remind you of catechim classes, but I can tell you of you current thinking.
“77% of Americans believe birth control shouldn’t be part of the national political debate.”—Bloomberg National Poll. Contrary to what one time GOP Hero Rick Santorum thinks.
"75% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.—Gallup 2011"
So, here's a good point--just to consider--without the rancor--OF you think you're mainstream?? Your'e not. IF you think one of the problems with the Dem/Libs is they 'don't listen to America'?? look at those numbers again.
(this may be one of those times we can have a reasonable debate. I'll try it if you will)
Posted - 9/9/2012 8:22:32 AM | show profile | flag this post
I think the key thing is that abortion is not an issue in this election. Roe v Wade is not in danger of being overturned. Every republican President since Roe v Wade has been pro-life and not once has there been any attempt at reversing it. This is a false scare tactic that is used every 4 years.
I must point out a major contradiction in your post. You stated that only God determines when life begins yet you also state that you don't think it begins at conception. I know you are not playing God but you are placing a personal restriction on God's opinion.
Posted - 9/9/2012 10:36:35 AM | show profile | flag this post
The GOP is clear.
the party platform calls for a ban on all abortions, no exception.
That is de facto overturning of Roe v Wade.
So, is the GOP is lying in their platform?
Posted - 9/9/2012 11:25:54 AM | show profile | flag this post
Blacked tape said it...
Roe v Wade will never be overturned...great fundraising fodder. "We will end abortion with your help...send money!" Gullible pro lifers donate only to watch it become an issue next election. Bush was pro life, had a repub house and senate and conservative SCOTUS...why wasn't abortion overturned then? Why were there no bills brought up even suggesting it? Because it is too valuable to have is still in place. What a bunch of lying hypocrites!
Posted - 9/9/2012 12:43:01 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I don't think it's when a few cells come together"
If you're following your church's teaching, that's not your determination to make. The church teaches that a human life is created at the moment of conception. I don't know if that's a ruling subject to papal infallability or not.
But people...for their own convenience or for political reasons...decide to construe church teachings differently.
Posted - 9/9/2012 12:51:15 PM | show profile | flag this post
Roe v. Wade is a strawman
left wingers resurrect every time a Republican president is contemplating a Supreme Court appointment or when a conservative is running for national office. The FACT is, however, that conservatives conform to the principle of "stare decisis," meaning "it has been decided." Conservative justices are loathe to overturn settled law.
Could it happen? Yes, certainly...IF the right set of facts were brought before the Court. But it's been tried...unsuccessfully.
Posted - 9/9/2012 1:29:49 PM | show profile | flag this post
I agree with you cruise;
On two points: "Conservative justices are loathe to overturn settled law" Stare decisis is a foundation of the SCOTUS--
But "Could it happen? Yes, certainly.." Reversing "Seperate but Equal" with Brown v Board of Education immediately came to mind--and only 9 yrs ago the Court reversed itself in the Texas sodomy laws case.
So while I'll agree with you on the points you made--Roe v Wade--and every other decision--is never permanent---so it's not a "strawman".
As far as my opinion not exactly agreeing with the Vaticans opinion?? It's pretty safe to say I'm in good company there. The majority of Catholics and Americans in general do not strictly believe in the churchs doctrines regarding both contraception and abortion in rare/special cases. The Jesuits have had a problem with papal infallability for centuries. One of the many reasons I've always loved them.
Posted - 9/9/2012 1:46:25 PM | show profile | flag this post
*** The FACT is, however, that conservatives conform to the principle of "stare decisis," meaning "it has been decided." ***
Actually, they don't, and that's why this continues to come up in Congress, including proposals by Paul Ryan -- unless he didn't mean it and has done it only to waste time and money. Ryan has said, however, that as a vice presidential candidate, he defers to Romney.
Posted - 9/9/2012 3:28:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Actually, they don't"
Actually, they do.
Posted - 9/9/2012 3:42:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
"It's pretty safe to say I'm in good company there"
Luther, Calvin, etc., also thought they were in good company. But were they right???
Posted - 9/9/2012 4:07:02 PM | show profile | flag this post
Regarding "stare decisis"
Yes...perhaps the Supreme Court, even the conservatives on the Court, has considered Roe v Wade 'settled law'--BUT there is no way in the world you can say that about Republican lawmakers.
Seven anti-Roe measures have been passed by the U.S. House in the 112th Congress. Furthermore "In the first three months of 2012, legislators in 45 of the 46 legislatures that have convened this year introduced 944 provisions related to reproductive health and rights. Half of these provisions would restrict abortion access. So far, 75 abortion restrictions have been approved by at least one legislative chamber, and nine have been enacted. This is below the record-breaking pace of 2011, when 127 abortion restrictions had been approved by at least one body"
Want a state by state guide?? Here ya go:
So; when Grateful and I point out that not all Republicans that Roe is "settled"--THAT'S what we're talking about.
(And as far as Lex Luthor and Calnin & Hobbes are concerned, they are not germaine to the discussion)
Posted - 9/9/2012 5:09:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
"there is no way in the world
you can say that about Republican lawmakers"
Doesn't matter. Even if they should get a law through congress (a herculean task, given the partisan division), it would still have to be approved by the Supreme Court, if challenged...and you just know Democrats would appeal any change.
Unless the change was based on something new, novel and incontrovertible, it would be governed by "stare decisis" for conservative justices and political agenda for the liberals.
So as much as I abhor Roe v. Wade and wish that whole topic were not part of the political narrative (it should be between a woman, her family, her doctor and her deity...period), I'm afraid we're stuck with it.
Posted - 9/9/2012 5:51:37 PM | show profile | flag this post
Once again, cruiser doesn't know what he is talking about.
Not only have conservative appointees to SCOTUS taken Roe v Wade to task in multiple dissents in challenges, Scalia SPECIFICALLY singled out the applicability of stare decisis to abortion in his dissent (joined by Thomas and White) in Planned Parenthood v. Casey ( a critical roe test).
In that case Scalia went so far as to argue Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
Other conservative dissents argued for the originalist position ... That since the framers did intend to protect women's rights to abortion, then the court has no role to recognize, much less protect, and legislated right.
I could go on and on.
the fact is the conservative court has long been hostile to Roe, argued against it again and again in dissent .. And weakened it is some ancilliary judgements.
Then only reason stare decisis exists re roe, was because of majority judgments from the liberal side of the bench.
Seriously, cruiser isn't just wrong ... He has no clue what he is talking about.
Sh*t. Just read the Conservative rulings on cases ranging from Webster on....
Posted - 9/9/2012 6:15:14 PM | show profile | flag this post
"I could go on and on"
And I'm sure you will. Too bad you won't have anything meaningful to add.
Posted - 9/9/2012 6:43:04 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well, how about the facts?
"The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."
"we should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."
"We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled"
- Scalia's dissent in Casey, arguing against the majority judgement (which was based on stare decisis) upholding roe.
" I continue to dissent from this enterprise of devising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that we have authority to do so."
- Scalia in Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990)
The Constitution contains no right to abortion. It is not to be found in the longstanding traditions of our society, nor can it be logically deduced from the text of the Constitution - not, that is, without volunteering a judicial answer to the nonjusticiable question of when human life begins. Leaving this matter to the political process is not only legally correct, it is pragmatically so. That alone - and not lawyerly dissection of federal judicial precedents - can produce compromises satisfying a sufficient mass of the electorate that this deeply felt issue will cease distorting the remainder of our democratic process. The Court should end its disruptive intrusion into this field as soon as possible.
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) (dissenting).
conservative judges on stare decisis:
Scalia:, "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let's get it right"
"Stare decisis is not an inexorable command" or "a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision." It is instead "a principle of policy"
- Scalia, FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2674 (2007
"the Court in that case, of course, overruled a prior decision. I don't think that constitutes judicial activism because obviously if the decision is wrong, it should be overruled. That's not activism. That's applying the law correctly."
- roberts on stare decisis in Brown v board.
“When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” ... "stare decisis is not an end in itself."
- Roberts in Citizens United.
So, what do we have?
1- conservative SCOTUS judges who argue roe is wrong and unconstitutional
2 - conservative SCOTUS judges who argue stare decisis does not apply to "wrong" judgements, and is "not an end in itself"
In other words, the exact opposite of cruiser's claims.
Posted - 9/9/2012 6:59:00 PM | show profile | flag this post
As always this person thinks
a small handful of out-of-context sentences "proves" his/her point.
Posted - 9/9/2012 6:59:57 PM | show profile | flag this post
Oh, just toss your hands in the air and say cruiser is right. Even though he isn't.
Posted - 9/9/2012 7:11:42 PM | show profile | flag this post
Well why don't you...
... Post the conservative ruling that back your claim?
You can't. You won't.
Because none of the quotes are out of context.
You are simply wrong. Totally off base. Your arguement is complete nonsense, unsupported by the facts. and two decades of jurisprudence from the conservative bench itself.
Arguing conservative SCOTUS judges will uphold Roe because of stare decisis, is like saying Romney/Ryan are Keynesians who want to increase taxes to create stimulus spending.
It is the opposite of what they've been arguing for the past 20 years.
It really is remarkable. Not just that you are wrong. But how wrong you are.
Mind bogglingly wrong.
Posted - 9/9/2012 9:00:41 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm going to say one more thing
to put this discussion in perspective then I'm done arguing with this pseudo-intellectual.
Roe has been in place for nearly 40 years through four Republican presidents and three Democrats...several changes of majority in both the house and senate...and it's still there.
Posted - 9/10/2012 5:32:34 AM | show profile | flag this post
Yes. Roe stands.
Despite a conservative bench that argued in minority dissent:
"We believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled"
A conservative bench that argues stare decisis does not apply to "wrong" rulings.
A conservative bench that says any abortion law should be decided, in whole, without judicial constraint, by lesgislarures and voters.
AND NOW, POLITICALLY .. A GOP platform that calls for a ban on all abortions, no exceptions.
A person of any intellectual honesty, not to mention moral principle would, at this point would come clean.
Either stand by the your party's clear policy and intent to ban abortions.
Or to say .. I was mistaken about the facts. I apologize.
Never apologize. Always attack. Lie the rest of the time.
Clinton argued a broken clock is at least right twice a day.
Cruiser can't even meet that low standard of truth.