No. of Recommendations: 23
Obama tilts federal judiciary back toward Democrats

WASHINGTON — The federal judiciary — long the province and priority of Republicans — is turning more Democratic.

The number of full-time federal judges named by Democratic presidents will draw even Friday with the number named by Republicans, following two retirements. The next of President Obama's nominees to replace a Republican-named judge will tilt the balance in Democrats' favor; that majority will grow for the remainder of his term.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/31/obama...

Heh.

Imagine eight years of Hillary after that. :-)

Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
As an attorney, the stacking of the federal courts with right wing ideologues has scared me for decades:

http://boards.fool.com/i-see-your-point-but-supreme-court-ju...

Substantial damage has already been done by the right wing ideologues.

Witness, for example, Citizens United, a staggering stupid and damaging decision that turned our elections over to the highest bidders and filled our airwaves with nonstop secretly funded attack ads:

http://boards.fool.com/supreme-court-appointments-have-been-...

And they are relentlessly attacking reproductive rights....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And they are relentlessly attacking reproductive rights....

_______________

Isn't terminating a life, actually the attack on reproductive rights?

Personally, I'd like to see a day where the Courts are completely independent of politics. People filing Court cases in jurisdictions they know are friendly, a DOJ that doesn't judge shop when it needs a warrant. (As Holder did with the AP reporters)

And the only Court that truely matters is SCOTUS since they have the final say. And unless someone dies on the bench while the opposite view is in office, that's not changing. It's why everyone suspects Ginsburg is next to retire.

It would be nice to have more swing votes. Instead of basically knowing that the Liberal 4 will always vote a certain way and Conservative 4 a certain way. And that one swing vote that people wait to see...how nice would it be to have 9 swing votes instead of political hacks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 38
cjb: "Isn't terminating a life, actually the attack on reproductive rights?"

Maybe in an alternate universe where up is down and left is right.

But in THIS universe a woman's right to contraception is her right with the advice and guidance of her doctors and not that of the government.

And her right to an abortion is also her right with the advice and guidance of her doctors and not that of the government.

And the reasons for that are clear to all sentient human beings who have a conscience:

1) only she knows if she used birth control that failed to work - only she knows if she can provide a safe environment for raising a child - only she knows if there is a supportive father who will not abuse or abandon the resulting child...

2) societies which do not support a woman's reproductive rights are almost universally societies which subjugate women - throughout the Middle East, South America, Central America and Asia...

...whereever a woman's reproductive rights are not protected, women are subjugated

3) societies which do not support a woman's reproductive rights almost universally have higher levels of poverty, suffering and illness for the children throughout those societies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So you're saying that even when there's a beating heart, it's still a woman's choice and that it's not a child until after it leaves the womb? Or do you have a point where you deem it a child?

Let's take two extremes as a starting point and work backwards.

1 - the date of conception...ok, have an abortion the next day. It's not a child.

2 - the day before labor begins. Can I assume you'd have a problem with an abortion on that day? If not the exercise is moot.

So those are the two extremes. Most Americans are in favor of early abortions and against late term (3rd trimester ones)

So where is the line in your view? At what point does the government have the responsibility to protect the child whom the mother is carrying? Afterall if the government's responsibility is to protect the most helpless in society, who's more helpless than a child who is viable outside the womb but hasn't been born yet?

Is that the standard? Viability? First heart beat?

Calling it reproductive rights is absurb since it's all about terminating the pregancy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
cjb: "So you're saying that even when there's a beating heart, it's still a woman's choice and that it's not a child until after it leaves the womb? Or do you have a point where you deem it a child?"

cjb: "So you're saying that even when there's a beating heart, it's still a woman's choice and that it's not a child until after it leaves the womb? Or do you have a point where you deem it a child?"

1. What I deem and what you deem are irrelevant. We cannot force the woman, at the point of a gun (to paraphrase anti-tax nuts), to accede to our definition. Are too stupid to get that basic point? Or are you too arrogant to get that point? Or do you lack the capacity for human empathy?

2. The Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade that the State's interest outweighs the mother's interest in the 3rd trimester. That is a compromise we must accept.

I don't know the meaning of absurb, but the rest of your points are answered by the above response.

If you are a human being, then terminating the pregnancy IS a question of reproductive rights.

I am no longer sure that anti-abortionis human because they have no real concern for plight of the mother and no real concern for the child that they would force the mother to bring to term and then raise.

And their willingness to call themselves anti-government while using the force of government to subjugate women and increase human suffering because of their religious ideology is incomprehensible to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade that the State's interest outweighs the mother's interest in the 3rd trimester. That is a compromise we must accept.


__________________________

That was actually modified in Casey v Pennsylvania. And was over 20 years ago...why does that matter? Because the Viability Test discusses the State's interest takes place at viability and not some artificial date. And with modern medical science that date is constantly moving so you can't just say "week 27".

Yet, you avoid the main question. When does life begin? Don't talk about legal or political definitions. Give me your personal definition or at least what you think the medical definition is. Simply put...where do you think the Child's rights are there?

It seems that protecting babies doesn't matter as long as the mother decides they don't want the child. Abortion Rights activists care about the abortion, they don't promote the "choice" they claim.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
cjb: "Abortion Rights activists care about the abortion, they don't promote the "choice" they claim."

That is a lie. I cannot think of a kinder way to put it.

cjb: "Yet, you avoid the main question. When does life begin"

That is NOT the main question.

If anything, the question would start as, 'when is it a human being?" To ask when does life begin completely ignores the continuum that is life.

An acorn is alive, but it is not an oak tree.
An egg is alive, but it is not a chicken.
A 3 celled zygote is alive, but it is not a baby.
A stem cell is alive, but it is not a baby.
When they reach the point that they can take DNA from a fingernail clipping and cultivate a human being, will fingernail clippings then be deemed by you to be human?

So: your *main* question is confused.

I do not ignore it, but I am faced with the reality that you haven't the cognition of an average four year old on this issue because of your ideological blinders impair your reasoning on this issue.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That is a lie. I cannot think of a kinder way to put it.

Wrong, that's the absolute truth...harsh truth, that you are unwilling to accept

An acorn is alive, but it is not an oak tree.

Comparing a fetus at 30 weeks to an acorn is the most dishonest thing possible. Comparing a tree to a human just as bad.

It's so simple...when you have an abortion after 15 weeks, a heart stops beating. A human heart, not three cells. Not some "growth" to be removed like a mole. A human with a heart.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Imagine eight years of Hillary after that. :-)<<

Sounds good to me, thanks!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
cjb: "Comparing a fetus at 30 weeks to an acorn is the most dishonest thing possible. Comparing a tree to a human just as bad."

Your inability to comprehend simple concepts is your problem. It only becomes my problem when people like you elect people who seek to take away the rights of women.

I was not comparing a 30 week fetus to an acorn, nor was I comparing a tree to a human. I was using an analogy. The analogy is a simplified way of illustrating that there is a continuum from acorn to tree just as there is a continuum from fertilized egg to newborn baby. And from newly laid egg to chicken. And so on.

Just as an acorn is not a tree, a 3 celled blastocyst is not a human being.

Come to think of it, you probably are too stupid to comprehend simple analogies. That seems to be a common thread for conservatives at tmf.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just as an acorn is not a tree, a 3 celled blastocyst is not a human being.

Come to think of it, you probably are too stupid to comprehend simple analogies. That seems to be a common thread for conservatives at tmf.


The whole discussion on abortion is not that simple.

Any opinion on any subject can be described as being uninformed because human beings are not capable of discerning all sides of an argument in order to come to a conclusion. We all lack the ability to consider every angle of evidence because of the way we think.

I ask you- What will the acorn be if allowed to progress naturally? There is no disputing that the acorn will become a tree. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the acorn is one indisputable phase of a particular lifeform as it becomes a tree. There has never been an oak tree that has not ultimately come from an acorn at some earlier point in its existence. There are no humans that did not ultimately come from a three cell blastocyst. Likewise, there has never been a three cell human blastocyst that developed into anything other than a human being.

Pr0-lifers see the blastocyst as an indisputable phase of a particular lifeform as it becomes a human being- and no one can argue with this fact. The difference between the pro-lifer and myself, then, is the significance of that fact. The argument between the two schools of thought must be between the significance of the rights of a woman who, by current methodology, is necessary to incubate the blastocyst- or not, and the significance of the rights of the future human being in this earliest phase of development.

It is, IMHO, a legal question and not a moral one. This is why I am pro-choice. There are those who see this as a moral decision on both sides, but the law can't be about morality- otherwise the law would be based on the fleeting whims of a society as its moral compass changes with the wind (as history shows).

American law is based on human rights- not morality- and whenever we as a people decide to base laws on morality, we flounder, we hate, we harm, and we find ourselves irrevocably divided. Of COURSE we do! There has never been a consensus on morality, and no statements of morality have ever been sustainable in history.

Morality belongs to the people- at least in constitutional America- and we all possess the right to adopt whatever morality we choose. Conversely, rights can be legislated according to reason as long as they don't negatively affect the rights of others. Would the founders have sanctioned state mandated human incubators for blastocysts as a formal "duty" to country?

That being said, I totally understand that if I believed that abortion was murder, I would easily fight against it at all costs and would create camps of human incubators against their will in order to force them to bring their potential offspring to human status before releasing them back to their "free" lives- but isn't that a moral decision?

I may even have deeply held reservations about freedom of choice, but I need to live by those reservations myself (and no one can prevent that), and allow others to live by theirs.

k
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The whole discussion on abortion is not that simple"

I did not say, suggest or imply that 'the whole discussion on abortion is that simple'. I said that that particular analogy was simple and that his answer was not even wrong. It made no sense. I had to break that one concept to its most basic level to explain to cjb why his response made no sense. He did not grasp the concept of analogy and how it works.

As for the rest of your post, abortion has both moral and legal implications. To say it is not a moral issue is an oversimplification but I haven't the time or energy to revisit it for the 100 millionth time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I did not say, suggest or imply that 'the whole discussion on abortion is that simple'. I said that that particular analogy was simple and that his answer was not even wrong. It made no sense. I had to break that one concept to its most basic level to explain to cjb why his response made no sense. He did not grasp the concept of analogy and how it works.

Thank you for this response. You are correct- I should have read more.

As for the rest of your post, abortion has both moral and legal implications. To say it is not a moral issue is an oversimplification but I haven't the time or energy to revisit it for the 100 millionth time.

I will simply say that I believe that abortion is a moral issue for the individual, and a strictly legal issue for the government- Laws should not be about morality.

k
Print the post Back To Top