+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Why is the court a single issue body today? (/thread-213320.html)
- Ninerfan1 - 11-01-2005 10:04 AM
I've been reading some stuff about the fight that's coming and every single thing seems to center around abortion. Is the Supreme Court really a single issue body to people? If so that's just plain sad.
My thought is this. Roe v Wade should be overturned by my objections to it aren't moral, they're ideological. It's the worst case of federal over reaching there is in my opinion. The states should be able to decide for themselves about the issue and in that forum is where the moral arguments should be made.
From anyone on the left, right or center here, is there another issue you care about with regards to the supreme court or is abortion it?
- fsquid - 11-01-2005 10:10 AM
its the one SC issue that is harped upon on Sunday mornings, hence why its a one issue body.
- Ninerfan1 - 11-01-2005 10:55 AM
Oddball Wrote:Idiot Repukes have made it the single issue.I'm trying to have a discussion with adults so could you either grow the hell up or not post? Your childishness is appropriate in Animal House threads but stay at the kiddie table if you can't be mature.
Now, back to any adults that would like to contribute.
- JTiger - 11-01-2005 11:54 AM
I think it's the most polarizing issue we have today. With the opportunity to change the ruling in play with every SCOTUS nomination, you'd better believe that it will be the ONE issue on everybodys mind.
I actually agree with you on the states rights issue of this debate Niner.
- uhmump95 - 11-01-2005 12:13 PM
I think most people are only concerned about abortion, because it is a hot button issue.
As for your thoughts on it being a state rights issue, I disagree. Just like the federal government had to step in to secure the rights of minorities, it needs to do the same to assure a woman's rights over her own body are not impaired.
- Ninerfan1 - 11-01-2005 12:38 PM
uhmump95 Wrote:it needs to do the same to assure a woman's rights over her own body are not impaired.Should a woman be allowed to be a prostitute? It's her body right? So why aren't pro-choicers lobbying for the federal government to make it legal?
There are laws upon laws that prohibit a person from doing certain things with their body. It's against the law for you to do drugs, drink and drive, own a nuke, yell fire in a theater etc.
There are a number of states that would keep abortion legal should Roe be overturned. A person can travel from NC where gambling is illegal (except in Cherokee) to Nevada where it is. Why can't a woman travel from a state where it's not legal to a state where it is?
This is an issue to be decided by the state. I don't equate abortion with civil rights though I know many do.
- cant_think_of_a_witty_nam - 11-01-2005 01:58 PM
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.
- Ninerfan1 - 11-01-2005 02:09 PM
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.
- blah - 11-01-2005 02:10 PM
Oddball Wrote:Idiot Repukes have made it the single issue.Another great post from Move On's poster boy....
I don't hear as many republican's talking about abortion as I do democrats. They are the ones who are threatening filibuster based on Alito's views.
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.
I think a lot of people on both sides of the abortion issue are making too much of this one issue. They seem to forget that this justice will impact a lot of decisions over the course of their stay on the bench.
- Ninerfan1 - 11-01-2005 02:21 PM
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.
- blah - 11-01-2005 02:33 PM
Ninerfan1 Wrote:I think you are right on the prostitution point. I don't know why it is any different than abortion. (The argument is same.... A woman's choice to do what she wants with her body.) Many countries (Netherlands, Germany to name a few) have legalized and regulated prositution. Why is it that there isn't the support for that here?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.
- uhmump95 - 11-01-2005 02:35 PM
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?
- uhmump95 - 11-01-2005 02:47 PM
Ninerfan1 Wrote: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?Drugs - The addiction to some of the illegal drugs are so powerful that is has been shown to acquire them the addict would be willing to commit crimes in order to attain the drugs. Other people may be affected by this besides the addict.
Prostitution - At least in most common way that prostitution is performed in the US, the spread of venerial diseases. Now I can see this risk being lowered if it was legalized. Other people may be affected by this besides the addict.
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.
- fsquid - 11-01-2005 03:01 PM
I'm pro-choice, for the legalization of weed, and the legalization of marajuana. I guess I win.
- Lethemeul - 11-01-2005 03:02 PM
uhmump95 Wrote:That appears to be the least divisive way to describe the Kelo case.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?
- 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.
- Ninerfan1 - 11-01-2005 03:16 PM
Quote:Drugs - The addiction to some of the illegal drugs are so powerful that is has been shown to acquire them the addict would be willing to commit crimes in order to attain the drugs. Other people may be affected by this besides the addict.
Same is true of booz yet that's legal.
Quote:Prostitution - At least in most common way that prostitution is performed in the US, the spread of venerial diseases. Now I can see this risk being lowered if it was legalized. Other people may be affected by this besides the addict.
This can happen by just having sex. Paying for it is the only difference. And it's still her body she can do with it what she wants right? That's the foundation of the abortion argument, not that it doesn't "harm" anyone. The simple fact that someone "could" get harmed is not reason enough to make a law against it is it? People can choose to sky dive, play football, rugby, bungee jump etc. all of which bring greater risk of harm than sex. They're all legal because the person takes on a certain degree of risk. If a person wants to have sex for money how is that different? It's their choice afterall.
Quote: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.
How about the dad? How about a family that can't have kids but would be loving parents to the child? What about government who decrease their tax base with every abortion? (That was meant to be off the wall.)
Quote:There is the difference right there.
You've illustrated differences but none of which nullify the existing foundational argument. If abortion is a matter of choice and no one can tell a woman what she can do with her body then there is no reasonable argument for a person who is pro-choice to not be for prostitution, unless it's a moral one. "Keep your laws off my body." Pretty sure I've read that on the back of a car before.
Quote:No potential harm to others, the only "victim" would be the unborn child which currently under US laws is not recognized.
US law at one time recognized you as 3/5ths of a human being, was that right? (rhetorically speaking)
And if US law doesn't recognize it why was Scott Peterson convicted for double murder?
- JTiger - 11-01-2005 03:17 PM
cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Abortion affects only that which is in a woman's own body.It affects the baby that the woman KILLS in the name of choice.
- cant_think_of_a_witty_nam - 11-01-2005 03:23 PM
Fetus*
- uhmump95 - 11-01-2005 05:13 PM
Quote:Same is true of booz yet that's legal.But should booz be legal????
Quote:This can happen by just having sex. .....I agree. Actually if prostitution was legal, it would probably be safer than dating. But alas the fact that America was founded by sexual prudes rears its ugly head again.(Just think about all the wild crazy European sex we are missing.)
Quote:How about the dad?If he is not told in the first place how is he harmed.
Quote:How about a family that can't have kids but would be loving parents to the child?
When I hear of all the American orphans there are and the fact that most people who want to adopt would rather purchase a foreign child it makes me sad.
Quote:What about government who decrease their tax base with every abortion? (That was meant to be off the wall.):roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:
That view there might make Democrats reverse their stance on Abortions :laugh:
Quote:You've illustrated differences but none of which nullify the existing foundational argument. If abortion is a matter of choice and no one can tell a woman what she can do with her body then there is no reasonable argument for a person who is pro-choice to not be for prostitution, unless it's a moral one.Agreed. I tried to base my examples of differences on illustrations that would not call into account the morality of said decisions. But like you said, all the risk from prostitution are same as having casual sex. Thus the reason for my point stated above.
Quote:US law at one time recognized you as 3/5ths of a human being, was that right?Well that was at the request of the southern states of the time in an attempt to keep their power in the House of Representatives. If I remove from the equation my ownn personal feelings about american slavery and look at it from the stand point of the people who lobbied for the time, then the answer would be yes. It allowed the southern states to retain some power inthe house of Reps.
Quote:And if US law doesn't recognize it why was Scott Peterson convicted for double murder?The main reason would be because the woman did not choose to terminate the pregnancy. Remember it is her body and her choice not his.
- Ninerfan1 - 11-01-2005 05:27 PM
Quote:But should booz be legal????
If you're pro-choice how can you not want it to be?
Quote:If he is not told in the first place how is he harmed.:eek:
Quote:When I hear of all the American orphans there are and the fact that most people who want to adopt would rather purchase a foreign child it makes me sad.
Agree. What's even sadder is that it can be as much as a 5 year waiting period to adopt a child and it can cost upwards of 10k to do it.
Quote:That view there might make Democrats reverse their stance on Abortions :laugh:
It will be part of my platform when I run for President. :laugh:
Quote:Agreed. I tried to base my examples of differences on illustrations that would not call into account the morality of said decisions. But like you said, all the risk from prostitution are same as having casual sex. Thus the reason for my point stated above.
So you'd agree that the place you fall on one side or the other is based on a moral compass?
Quote:If I remove from the equation my ownn personal feelings about american slavery and look at it from the stand point of the people who lobbied for the time, then the answer would be yes. It allowed the southern states to retain some power inthe house of Reps.
To me you can't do this. There are things that are fundamentally right and wrong in the world. The idea that one life has more value than another or one person is "less" human than another is morally repugnant to me. Laws themselves are extensions of an under riding moral value system.
The whole foundation of this country is that my status as a human or my freedom is not granted to me by the law it's granted to me by God/nature/creation what have you. If government can define me as something less than I am then there's no such thing as true freedom. You're basically saying that it was right to designate you as less than you were in order to appease others who deemed themselves of more value.
Quote:The main reason would be because the woman did not choose to terminate the pregnancy. Remember it is her body and her choice not his.
So if the baby is killed by her choice it's fine, but if not it's murder? Talk about a slippery slope.