justice "justice"

[CitationLover]

with these three justices stopping the partial birth abortion law (one in san francisco go figure!), it seems to me we elect politicians who then appoint our true "governors" as these justices block everything they disagree with.

this is the problem with anti-abortion legislation as now we will have reversal upon reversal every time we have a new president from a different political party.

i hope the democrats get creamed in 2004 so some of these justices can finally pass through the house/senate. its criminal that they hold up every single nominee proposed. how can the congressional black caucus be opposed to a black female justice. and they wonder why its called the naalcp.

 

[flywithastick]

This is why the libs/'rats are working so hard to block "W's" federal judge appointments. they know these people legislate from the bench with little opposition.

 

[chawbein]

It's a well known fact that Libs can't legislate their agenda, so they appoint liberal judges to sneak their agenda under the radar. Although there is such a thing as "checks and balances", there is no "check and balance" for the judiciary, it's almost self-governing.

 

[CitationLover]

there is a check and balance, its called appointments. these of course are being held up politically which is a shame. ram rod politics.

 

[AeroBoy]

Why is it that most men think they can tell women what to do with their bodies? And how many women are there in Congress to approve such legislation? And of those handful of women, how many voted for this bill?

The reality of this bill is that it is the first step for anti-abortionists to overturn Roe v Wade, which by the way was a court decision. All the lower courts are doing is upholding what the Supreme Court ruled some 30 years ago. Get over it.

 

[CitationLover]

i agree live with it or we will have this pro/con switcheroo every 4/8 years. however, both sides are guilty.

why is it ok to block loggers with human chains, etc. yet to do so at an abortion clinic is punishable by RICO statutes? also, the baby has a father who has rights also. the government tells all what they can/can't do with their bodies. suicide is illegal. the fda regulates food. this logic doesn't fly.

 

[wms]

Why is it that most men think they can tell women what to do with their bodies?

Why is it most liberals think it's ok to kill? They're against punishing criminals with the death penalty, but in favor of scrambling a baby's brains inches from birth as they make their way down the birth canal. They stepped over dead bodies in Kuwait to walk down to the beach and cry over oil soaked ducks.

Some sense of priority for what is supposed to be a humane, compassionate society.

 

[TWA Dude]

why is it ok to block loggers with human chains, etc. yet to do so at an abortion clinic is punishable by RICO statutes?

Perhaps it's because those "human chains" at abortion clinics contain a few people who bomb, murder, maim, and assault patients and doctors? Of course it's only a few radicals and nutcases who commits these crimes, yet the percentage of non-violent people who implicitly support such violence is quite high.

 

[CitationLover]

i knew someone would say this which is why i chose the logger analogy.

wacko environmentalists have killed, bombed, and spiked many many many times over what anti-abortionists do. you have these same people burning down new housing developments, etc.

again, the logic doesn't fly

 

[Timebuilder]

Why is it that most men think they can tell women what to do with their bodies?

Well, there are several reasons. Men can tell women to not pick up a lamp and not bash their 10 year old in the head, can't they? Of course.

The child a woman carries is not specifically "her body". It is another person with unique DNA. It is not a clone of her, or a appendage like a finger. The more we learn through medicine and research, the more we find that the old idea that this is not a "person" is being proven wrong.

And how many women are there in Congress to approve such legislation?

This is a red herring, since we agree to serve as representatives, and not as males or females.

All the lower courts are doing is upholding what the Supreme Court ruled some 30 years ago. Get over it.

At Nuremberg, many of the Nazi officers said they were "just following orders". That was true. Sometimes though, you have to consider the directive of a higher authority. The Supreme court merely nullified prohibitions against abortion. There is a big difference between this nullification and legislation. This legislation, this partial birth ban, is the will of the people, not an edict handed down from the bench. Soon, and you are correct in this, Roe v Wade will be overturned. Not because men want to tell women what to do, but because we will all have learned so much about the fetal stage of life that we will have concluded that this really is a person, and subject to the protections of the Constitution just as any of us are, and that the "right" (which is not a Constitutional right) of a woman to murder her baby before birth does not, and never did, exist.

 

[SammyG]

Well, there are seval reasons. Men can tell women to not pick up ma lampshade and not bash their 10 year old in the head, can't they? Of course.

The child a woman carries is not specifically "her body". It is another person with unique DNA. It is not a clone of her, or a appendage like a finger. The more we learn through medicine and research, the more we find that the old idea that this is not a "person" is being proven wrong.



This is a red herring, since we agree to serve as representatives, and not as males or females.



At Nuremberg, many of the Nazi officers said they were "just following orders". That was true. Sometimes though, you have to consider the directive of a higher authority. The Supreme court merely nullified prohibitions agianst abortion. There is a big difference bewteen this nullification and and legislation. This is legislation, the will of the people, not an edict handed down from the bench. Soon, and you are correct in this, Roe v Wade will be overturned. Not because men want to tell women what to do, but because we will all have learned so much about the fetal stage of life that we will have concluded that this really is a person, and subject to the protections of the Constitution just as any of us are, and that the "right" (which is not a Constitutional right) of a woman to kill her baby before birth does not, and never did, exist.

Nicely put. I am often amused when Pro-Abortionists present the rather ridiculous argument that men "want to tell them what to do with theur bodies". Come on. If we really wanted power over women's bodies, don't you think we'd come up with something a little more elaborate than that??

This argument fails to hold water because, if there was a case to be made for men wanting to tell women what to do with their bodies...it would present itself in more issues than just abortion. If this were such a "male power trip".....then I'm fairly certain men wouldn't rely on JUST the Abortion issue in order to push this agenda. But....lo and behold.....there isn't one other area where I have heard this ridiculous argument made. Heck...like I said...it barely holds water in Abortion issue itself.

So...please...come up with something else....anything else.....'cause this "power trip" theory is just insulting...not only to anti abortionists.....but it kinda says something about pro-abortionists as well for not being able to generate a better argument.

 

[Timebuilder]

Perhaps it's because those "human chains" at abortion clinics contain a few people who bomb, murder, maim, and assault patients and doctors?

No, those people who blow up clinics would never show up to pray outside a clinic.

Of course it's only a few radicals and nutcases who commits these crimes, yet the percentage of non-violent people who implicitly support such violence is quite high.

This is a liberal fantasy. See you on the sidewalk.

 

[AeroBoy]

wacko environmentalists have killed, bombed, and spiked many many many times over what anti-abortionists do.

Where's your proof to back this up? Or is this just your opinion?

Do not paint me for or against abortion just because I am pro-choice. Pro-choice is not automatically pro-abortion, as a large majority of republicans believe.

And for those of you against this procedure outright: what about the mothers whose own life is at risk if they continue the pregnancy? Should they have to die simply because you want to outlaw this procedure? So who, then, is killing who?

 

[CitationLover]

aeroboy,

please know the facts before you speak. ever hear of ALF/ELF? they are on the FBI's list of terrorist organizations, just like al-qaeda.

where did i paint you as pro-abortion? are you feeling guilty about your stance and thus are being defensive?

when did i say i wanted to outlaw this procedure? if anything i said the law of the land should stay as it is, else we have anti-abortion laws with repub presidents that are overturned by demo presidents that are overturned by...well you get the picture.

 

[TWA Dude]

No, those people who blow up clinics would never show up to pray outside a clinic.

So you're telling me that those people who only showed up to pray outside a clinic have never committed a crime against abortion patients or doctors? Don't forget, protesting isn't a crime but harrassment is.

This is a liberal fantasy. See you on the sidewalk.

How dissappointing! You were doing so well, making lucid arguments to further your opinion, but then you resorted to labelling.

Worse yet, you didn't even try to dispute my assertion that even non-violent people implicitly support crimes against abortion patients and doctors. Think about it: in the USA somebody who commits murder may be subject to the Death Penalty, which is "killing" but is not "murder", the distinction being as clear as in military action. Those people "just praying" outside clinics believe abortion is murder, hence killing of the doctors is an acceptable outcome. Agreeing with murderers isn't a crime, but it does create a legal basis for reasonable restrictions against how close protesters can get to a clinic. The guy above doesn't like the RICO Act being used against abortion protesters but I submit that it wouldn't be necessary if those protesters didn't implicitly support crimes against doctors performing legal procedures.

 

[CitationLover]

The guy above doesn't like the RICO Act being used against abortion protesters but I submit that it wouldn't be necessary if those protesters didn't implicitly support crimes against doctors performing legal procedures.

i just want consistency from our government. abortion doctor killers should be given the death penalty also, imho.

 

[TWA Dude]

i just want consistency from our government. abortion doctor killers should be given the death penalty also, imho.

I agree 100%.

I'm not at all looking for an argument on the abortion issue. I respect opinions on all sides and I've no intention of trying to convince anybody of anything. You lament the governmental processes that go back and forth. Well, that's because the population is so evenly divided. Yes, I know that a majority polled say they're against abortion but that's a far cry from supporting throwing doctors into jail.

Dude

 

[chawbein]

Those people "just praying" outside clinics believe abortion is murder, hence killing of the doctors is an acceptable outcome. Agreeing with murderers isn't a crime, but it does create a legal basis for reasonable restrictions against how close protesters can get to a clinic. The guy above doesn't like the RICO Act being used against abortion protesters but I submit that it wouldn't be necessary if those protesters didn't implicitly support crimes against doctors performing legal procedures.

Don't make assumptions based on something you know nothing about. That guy who was just executed for killing the abortion doctor got what was coming to him. He deserved it. So does everyone who blows up clinics and kills people. Those people aren't martyrs or soldiers, they are criminals. Christianity is not a religion of violence, the only martyrs from Christianity come from those who continue to profess their faith in Christ while they are killed at the hands of others. Please don't lump me (I think that abortion is a brutal and disgusting practice.) in with murderers and law breakers.

 

[Timebuilder]

Don't forget, protesting isn't a crime but harrassment is.

I don't think shouting in a public environment is considered harrassment. My opinion is that those who are given to prayer are satisfied that their prayer is effective in making a plea to God. Those who bomb clinics are those who believe that prayer is NOT sufficient. This does not mean that we should not also make our plea heard to those who can decide for or against a procedure: the women entering the clinic that may be dissuaded from having the procedure.

Think about this: there are people who are alive today because someone was able to convince a woman to decide against having an abortion. You and I are able to have this conversation because at least one woman decided in favor of life.

You were doing so well, making lucid arguments to further your opinion, but then you resorted to labelling.

While I thank you for the observation, I have to tell you that since I spent over two decades as a liberal, I reserve the right to apply my personal and insightful experience in a declarative statement. If I can't identify a liberal fantasy, no one can. I guess you have to trust me on that. It is my experience as a liberal that makes me a conservative, and a Republican since 1994.

Worse yet, you didn't even try to dispute my assertion that even non-violent people implicitly support crimes against abortion patients and doctors. Think about it: in the USA somebody who commits murder may be subject to the Death Penalty, which is "killing" but is not "murder", the distinction being as clear as in military action. Those people "just praying" outside clinics believe abortion is murder, hence killing of the doctors is an acceptable outcome.

I think I see the problem we are having here. You are connecting the murder of a baby as a justification of murder of an abortion doctor. This is never correct. We are not authorized to act as individuals outside of civil or military authority to dispense justice, which is what you are talking about. In self defense, we are not dispensing justice. In fact, I support the recent execution of the man that shot an abortion doctor, and I counsel anyone from taking that kind of action outside of our structure of law.

While I cannot imagine the thoughts of others, I know of no one who has expressed an "implicit" support of shooting abortion doctors outside of a small group of wacky people who say that God has gone against scripture and authorized them to encourage this action. For them to suggest this, they must abandon a Biblical view of God, who is always consistent. To the very best of my knowlege, these are not the same individuals who pray outside of clinics.

The guy above doesn't like the RICO Act being used against abortion protesters but I submit that it wouldn't be necessary if those protesters didn't implicitly support crimes against doctors performing legal procedures.

The RICO statute is supposed to be used against a corrupt organization. If a group of protesters is indeed corrupt, according to legal definition, then the authorities must simply round up, charge, and convict the people to whom this applies. The next day, a group of non corrupt protesters will be happy to take their place. You see, you can't make a blanket statement that ALL people who espose a view under the first amendment should be barred from making that expression. The RICO started to come into play as NOW began to pressure liberal judges to apply the statute in a way that was not intended in its passage. NOW wants the statute to be applied in a political manner, which is the definition of oppression. Of course, as liberals, oppression is okay, as long as it is someone else's oppression.

From Citation Lover:

i just want consistency from our government. abortion doctor killers should be given the death penalty also, imho.

One has been given death, and rather recently. I think it is very consistent.

Yes, I know that a majority polled say they're against abortion but that's a far cry from supporting throwing doctors into jail.

Rather than throwing doctors into jail, they should avoid contributing to the modern holocaust of 30 million deaths.

 

[TWA Dude]

Christianity is not a religion of violence, the only martyrs from Christianity come from those who continue to profess their faith in Christ while they are killed at the hands of others.

Of course Christianity isn't a religion of violence and neither are any of the others (that I know of). Yet it's funny how many thousands of years of warring have gone on between groups of differing religions. People will twist religious writings to support whatever they wish it to. Heck, occasionally some will just write a few of their own. That's one of the reasons why a secular government allows freedoms a theocracy doesn't.