Ninerfan1 Wrote:

blah Wrote:I don't hear as many republican's talking about abortion as I do democrats.

I would agree with this. My experience is the same.

Quote:As to your question Niner, for me it is just one of many relevant topics (affirmative action, state's rights, censorship and equal protection) that I think are important.

This is my whole point. To me abortion is wrong but the court to me represents so much more. The most recent decision that said private property could be confiscated by compaines if it would increase tax revenue is just one example. I still fume about that one.

It just seems to me that abortion is the only issue anyone ever cares about in this fight and the reality of it is it's extremely unlikely that it would ever be over turned.

Interesting. You want to keep the private property issue which was moved to the state level, at the Federal level but you want to move abortion to the state level instead of the federal level.

The other thing I find interesting is Republicans say they want limited role of the government. Yet, they want the federal government to be involved in peoples personal choices(abortion, right to die, gay rights etc).

uhmump95 Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:The most recent decision that said private property could be confiscated by compaines if it would increase tax revenue is just one example.  I still fume about that one.

Wasn't the ruling that the local government can take property to be used for economic development?

Pretty much. Of course, it helps if the person posting reads what the court said before posting things he has no idea about. As in my earlier post, the court basically said give it to the states to regulate as tough or lenient as they want. There were already 7 some states who had the strict reading in place at the time of the decision. Having said that, I think people should be fairly compensated, which is not occuring for the most part in my opinion.

Quote:Interesting. You want to keep the private property issue which was moved to the state level, at the Federal level but you want to move abortion to the state level instead of the federal level.

Maybe you should take your own advice and know what the hell you're talking about before posting on it.

The supreme court didn't move the issue to the state, they upheld that the state could continue what it was already doing.

"The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling."

Let's see, what's the best way to put this, oh yeah. Of course, it helps if the person posting reads what the court said before posting things he has no idea about.

uhmump95 Wrote:Abortion - A woman chooses to have sex, gets pregnant and chooses to abort(murder) her unborn child. No potential harm to others, the only "victim" would be the unborn child which currently under US laws is not recognized.

There is the difference right there.

What about the father of the child, especially if he is her husband? Is he affected?

Lethemeul Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:The most recent decision that said private property could be confiscated by compaines if it would increase tax revenue is just one example.  I still fume about that one.

Wasn't the ruling that the local government can take property to be used for economic development?

That appears to be the least divisive way to describe the Kelo case.

- Company wants to buy your property and develop it differently than the way you have.
- You tell Company thanks but no thanks. I like my house and my lot.
- Company goes to local governmental unit and convinces them that the way they want to use your property is more beneficial to the community than the way the property is currently being used.
- Local governmental unit uses eminent domain to acquire your property and transfer it to Company.

There was some language about economic development and the greater good in the decision.

The City of Arlington is using this to get the land to build a new stadium for the Cowboys and Jerry Jones. They haven't actually taken any land by eminent domain that that I know of, but they are using the threat of it as leverage to force landowners to sell. (We're going to get it anyway, might as well save yourself a lot of trouble and take our offer).

Prior to this, property could be taken only for public use.

My father had land and a building taken by eminent domain. It took two years and a court battle for him to get 2/3 of what he thought it was worth.

Somebody went and made a offer for Justice Souter's house, ostensibly to build a hotel and resort. When he was rebuffed, he went to the City Council and asked them to use their power of ED to take Souter's house, as the Hotel/Resort would pay more taxes and bring in economic development, but the CC wouldn't play along, perhaps a breach of their trust.

uhmump95 Wrote:

Quote:How about the dad?

If he is not told in the first place how is he harmed.

It seems as though you are assuming that all pregnancies take place out of wedlock, Even if this were so, since the father has responsibility, he should have some rights.

And if he WAS told, what then?

You appear to be taking the tack that what you don't know can't hurt you. You know better than that.

If your neighbor is sleeping with your wife, but you don't have a clue, no harm, right?

If your employees are stealing your money and you don't know it, how are you hurt?

and so forth...

What rights do or should the father have though? If she wants the abortion and he clearly doesn't, is she supposed to forgoe her wishes? If not, why does he need rights and what would those rights be?

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:What rights do or should the father have though? If she wants the abortion and he clearly doesn't, is she supposed to forgoe her wishes? If not, why does he need rights and what would those rights be?

I think the argument is one of harm for the father and not rights, at least what I was saying. This being in respons to uhump saying that no one is harmed by a woman having an abortion.

The overall point being that an abortion and the effects of it aren't just confined to the woman alone, others can, and in many cases are, harmed by it.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:Interesting. You want to keep the private property issue which was moved to the state level, at the Federal level but you want to move abortion to the state level instead of the federal level.

Maybe you should take your own advice and know what the hell you're talking about before posting on it.

The supreme court didn't move the issue to the state, they upheld that the state could continue what it was already doing.

"The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling."

Let's see, what's the best way to put this, oh yeah. Of course, it helps if the person posting reads what the court said before posting things he has no idea about.

Before you anybody, it gives STATE REPRESENTATIVES the right to make their state law as STRICT or as LENIENT as they want through their states constitution. That was what I was trying to say. There are MANY states that are currently or have done this to the degree that they feel is necessary for their state. So if you want it stricter or weaker, call your state representative. I would at least find out what your state is doing if you are interested. :)

Yes, the idea is good for that area. In the court case, I have read where there is only 30% developable land in that city(which most, if not all is developed) with much of the rest government owned[submarine base and surrounding land(actually was on the chopping block but survived)].

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:What rights do or should the father have though? If she wants the abortion and he clearly doesn't, is she supposed to forgoe her wishes? If not, why does he need rights and what would those rights be?

I think the argument is one of harm for the father and not rights, at least what I was saying. This being in respons to uhump saying that no one is harmed by a woman having an abortion.

The overall point being that an abortion and the effects of it aren't just confined to the woman alone, others can, and in many cases are, harmed by it.

Take a gander at the post above the one you quoted.

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Take a gander at the post above the one you quoted.

Quote:I think the argument is one of harm for the father and not rights, at least what I was saying.

I was seperating out harm and rights, which is why I stated what's bolded above. The post above was dealing with both.

So if I'm talking about apples, why bring up oranges to me?

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:So if I'm talking about apples, why bring up oranges to me?

Because they are both fruit, grow on trees and juice is made from them.

blah Wrote:Because they are both fruit, grow on trees and juice is made from them.

:laugh:

Still doesn't mean I give a damn or that they're particularly relevant.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Abortion affects only that which is in a woman's own body. Drugs, prostitution, "fire" in a crowded theatre -- these things all involve other people.

I think the argument can be made quite easily that abortion doesn't just affect the woman.

How do drugs and prostitution involve other people? If your argument is someone has to grow it or buy it how is that different from abortion? Someone has to perform it.

I'm assuming that when you say that abortion affects more than the mother, you're referring to an unborn child. I won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole. In the end, that's an emotional/moral debate and no longer one based on laws.

Drug crime affects way more people than the user. What about all the crimes surrounding the growth and distribution of drugs? People in the growing areas are violently removed from prime areas. People are forceably kept in-line who are "employed" by the drug cartels. Don't even get me started on the number of people impacted by the trafficking of the drugs. Drugs, in general, are a blight on society and those people who pull the tired "it's my body" line either conveniently choose to ignore or are incapable of rationalizing all the crap that goes on to get those drugs to the end user.

Prostitution....eh, that one's a little touchier. When done in controlled environments, it is a victimless crime. However, the common streetwalker and pimp arrangement does not qualify as a controlled environment and those types are commonly tied to other crimes.

Sorry, I could have read further. Fathers have very little rights related to children anyway. Hell, the default position is that the mother gets custody unless there's seriously screwed up with her or her situation and the father is a vastly more stable parent.

99Tiger Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Abortion affects only that which is in a woman's own body. Drugs, prostitution, "fire" in a crowded theatre -- these things all involve other people.

I think the argument can be made quite easily that abortion doesn't just affect the woman.

How do drugs and prostitution involve other people? If your argument is someone has to grow it or buy it how is that different from abortion? Someone has to perform it.

I'm assuming that when you say that abortion affects more than the mother, you're referring to an unborn child. I won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole. In the end, that's an emotional/moral debate and no longer one based on laws.

Drug crime affects way more people than the user. What about all the crimes surrounding the growth and distribution of drugs? People in the growing areas are violently removed from prime areas. People are forceably kept in-line who are "employed" by the drug cartels. Don't even get me started on the number of people impacted by the trafficking of the drugs. Drugs, in general, are a blight on society and those people who pull the tired "it's my body" line either conveniently choose to ignore or are incapable of rationalizing all the crap that goes on to get those drugs to the end user.

Prostitution....eh, that one's a little touchier. When done in controlled environments, it is a victimless crime. However, the common streetwalker and pimp arrangement does not qualify as a controlled environment and those types are commonly tied to other crimes.

Sorry, I could have read further. Fathers have very little rights related to children anyway. Hell, the default position is that the mother gets custody unless there's seriously screwed up with her or her situation and the father is a vastly more stable parent.

Again the arguments brought up are based on the fact that both drugs and prostitution are not regulated here in the U.S. You don't here about any murders or crime surrounding either drugs or prostitution in the Netherlands, where both are regulated.

Both of these would be victimless if regulated. I just think it is B.S. to make the statement that it is "her' body she can do with it what she wants and then not support legalizing drugs and prostitution. Like it or not, they are the same.

On the other side of the argument, I don't know why there isn't more of a ruckus stirred up about outlawing smoking. There are victims of that. Second-hand smoke is a known carcinogen. Let's not be hypocritical. If you are for banning abortion, you should be for banning smoking.

Quote:Again the arguments brought up are based on the fact that both drugs and prostitution are not regulated here in the U.S. You don't here about any murders or crime surrounding either drugs or prostitution in the Netherlands, where both are regulated.

I think that the drugs that are regulated in the Netherlands are not the ones that cause murder or crime. Correct if I am wrong, I know that weed is legal in the Netherlands, but I do not think heroine or cocaine are.

Quote:Both of these would be victimless if regulated. I just think it is B.S. to make the statement that it is "her' body she can do with it what she wants and then not support legalizing drugs and prostitution. Like it or not, they are the same.

Agreed, but remember you have taken this down to its most basic form. Which is devoid of any moral or other indications. I remember doing this with abortion and death penalty a while back and getting much consternaton from blah, and ninerfan1 for it, because you guys refused to take the argument to its most basic form.

Quote:Let's not be hypocritical. If you are for banning abortion, you should be for banning smoking.

Agreed both are infringing on another person's rights.

To take it farther, why is smoking tobacco legal and smoking weed is not.

Quote:I think that the drugs that are regulated in the Netherlands are not the ones that cause murder or crime.  Correct if I am wrong, I know that weed is legal in the Netherlands, but I do not think heroine or cocaine are.

Doesn't matter. The crime is driven by the fact that the activity is illegal. Regulate it and there is nothing to fight about. (See bootlegging in the 1920's.) (uhmump95, understand I am not for the legalization of either of these. My point is only that legalizing and regulating these would eliminate the current associated crime.)

Quote:Agreed, but remember you have taken this down to its most basic form.  Which is devoid of any moral or other indications.  I remember doing this with abortion and death penalty a while back and getting much consternaton from blah, and ninerfan1 for it, because you guys refused to take the argument to its most basic form.

I agree with you. This arguement is devoid of moral beliefs. But is an argument from the side of pro-abortion which doesn't see abortion as a moral issue. My question was why if you support abortion do you not support legalizing drugs and prostitution. On the flip side anti-abortion proponents should be anti-prostitution and possibly anti-drug. (Arguments could be made that doing drugs is both morally wrong and right, I suppose.)

Quote:Agreed both are infringing on another person's rights.

To take it farther, why is smoking tobacco legal and smoking weed is not.

I agree. Both are addictive. In fact cigarettes are probably more deadly for both the smoker and the second-hand breather. Either legalize both or ban both. I would prefer the latter.

99Tiger Wrote:I'm assuming that when you say that abortion affects more than the mother, you're referring to an unborn child. I won't touch that one with a 10-foot pole. In the end, that's an emotional/moral debate and no longer one based on laws.




Sorry, I could have read further. Fathers have very little rights related to children anyway. Hell, the default position is that the mother gets custody unless there's seriously screwed up with her or her situation and the father is a vastly more stable parent.

I don't think it is an emotional/moral debate: I think it is a medico-legal debate.

Everyone agrees that it is morally wrong to commit murder. The debate is over at what point the growth inside a woman's body becomes a human being, worthy of protection by law from being murdered. Some people think this moment happens at the moment of conception, others not until the baby is fully, 100% born and separate from the mother, and some think it happens somewhere in between. So when does that lump stop being a tumor, excisable at the choice of the woman, and become a human being, protected by law? That is the debate. I don't have the answers. I do find it illogical that a woman can abort a child/fetus or keep it, and the child/fetus is defined by her choice. If she kills it, it is a fetus, if she keeps it, it is a child. Many mothers have already named their child by the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy.

I think it is unfortunate that the SCOTUS nominations are all seen in the light of this single issue. I want justices that uphold the law, whatever it may be.

Re: father's rights, I saw an interesting statement in the paper today. "When a couple splits, she gets the kids and he gets an invoice".

Fathers are important. We have responsibilites: we should have rights too.