Printable View
LB,
I definitely agree with your proposition that the fundies need to be mollified. The second point regarding the next President's appointments is a little uncertain as I am not sure that a right-wing nut job (ala Bill Frist) could beat Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, those candidates which would do the GOP best (McCain or Guiliani) are not pro-life, so it may be difficult for them to survive the primary.
Edit to add: page top bitches.
you're splitting hairs there buddy, I was only drawing a comparison, Plessy was the ruling that upheld segregation, aka crowe
I'll concede that I was more or less arguing semantics. Either way, the problem lies in the SD law and the eventual rulings regarding it, not Plessy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
While I don't necessarily agree with the new SD law, I find it strangely amusing that the same folks who were SCREAMING states' rights in the case of Terry Schiavo [which in basic principle is really no different] are the same people now praying the Supreme Court will rule to save their precious abortion "rights."
It doesn't work both ways. JMO. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
instead of the smartassed reply to a rhetorical question, I'd be curious about your answer to the more important one:
Quote:
What if the desires of our people are wrong or inethical?
Lone Star,
Now you are getting down to the crux of the debate which the Founders faced and which ultimately led to the hatred between Hamilton and Jefferson.
Hey lonestar, suck a dick cowboy, I wasn't being a smartass.
but I seemed to hit a chord, you agree with segreation?
Action:
Pregnant women can't get abortions in SD.
Reaction:
Sales of aluminum baseball bats spike in SD.
is it ethical for a man to believe he has the right to legislate over a woman's body?
I think I might be able to explain this. These folks you speak of will probably tell you that the Roe ruling is illegitimate and if the "activist judges" and the courts would "stop legislating from the bench," this wouldn't have even been an issue now in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLOODSWEATSTEEL
Is it ethical for a woman to believe she has the right to decide the fate of a man's child?Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
if that man raped her, yes.
if that man is related to her, yes,
and until men start carrying and giving birth to children, yes.
Actually, only in one case. If I had my way, people from Massachusetts wouldn't be allowed to set foot west of the Mississippi River.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
A common misconception is that if Roe v. Wade were overturned it would immediately outlaw abortion everywhere. Not true; unless there was a federal law put in place which outlawed abortion outright the decision would still be up to the states. Granted, some states would outlaw it but I very much doubt that more liberal states would be ok with that at all.
If it makes it that far I hope that the supreme court won't hear the case, though that is unlikely. I do agree with what is being said though, conservatives really are shooting themselves in the foot with this issue.
.... Mississippi? I've heard one of them never even made it past the Chappaquidick. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Star
good thing for me that the average texan couldn't point out Mass on a map.
....Which brings us back to square one....Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
;)Quote:
What if the desires of our people are wrong or unethical?
Honestly, which is why this argument is pretty much useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLOODSWEATSTEEL
Look, I would be willing to give up on restrictions to abortions - outright ban on abortions after 24 weeks (with obvious exceptions), so long as the right would give up their resistence to honest sex ed and access to birth control. There has to be sone middle ground in this argument. But more often than not, the discussion degenerates into name calling and anger (as we have just witnessed)
Agreed. 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassLiberal
What do you mean access to birth control? I'm not sure I ever knew there was a problem. Every convenience store I have ever been in has had condoms at the very least?
yet it is legal for pharmacists to deny a woman birth control based on "religious beliefs" they continue to block the approval of the morning after pill due to non medical reasons at FDA...
CUBUCK-
As strictly construed the life begins at conception crowd would outlaw all contraception if given the chance but would really like to outlaw the pill + IUDs which allow conception but not attachment to the uterine wall b/c they are "killing" the unborn children.
edit- this is clearly already evident as pointed out with respect to the so called morning after pill
America = Freedom.
Freedom = choices.
This entire issue scares me a lot. :nonono2: :nonono2:
Maybe that Colorado teacher was on to something.
LB,
Just trying to stir the pot. I was hoping this would move to a debate about handing out condoms to third graders during recess. Much more humor there.
...And with freedom comes RESPONSIBILITY. There's a fine line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kya