will this ever happen, why or why not?

10/31/2005 5:34:47 AM

If conservatives were truly serious about eliminating abortion, one of them would propose a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion.

10/31/2005 7:48:58 AM

^ They have, like 10 times. Try to keep up pryderi, speaking from the hip just doesn't cut it for someone that has a reputation for speaking from his ars.

10/31/2005 8:00:23 AM

Quote :

"^ They have, like 10 times. Try to keep up pryderi, speaking from the hip just doesn't cut it for someone that has a reputation for speaking from his ars. "

ars? I guess you meant "arse." While your up in mine, would you mind licking it clean?

Can you tell me who in Congress has proposed one, and when?

[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 9:40 AM. Reason : ?]

10/31/2005 9:40:39 AM

Quote :

"^ They have, like 10 times. Try to keep up pryderi, speaking from the hip just doesn't cut it for someone that has a reputation for speaking from his ars."

Tell me dates of floor votes.

10/31/2005 10:05:19 AM

I think the United States government will collapse and be reformed into a fundamentalist theocracy a la Handmaid's Tale before we see abortion outright banned throughout the entire country. I could see Roe versus Wade being reversed and some states banning the procedure, however. Unlikely, but possible.

10/31/2005 10:31:57 AM

Exactly. Which is why the Democrats should look in the mirror before publishing books such as "What's the matter w/ Kansas?" which argue the Republicans often vote against their vital interests. Abortion will remain legal, hence it's not a priority to spend all your time making sure it will. A right to own private property on the other hand seems to have a better chance to fly out of the window (see eminent domain laws and rulings).

10/31/2005 11:17:33 AM

Quote :

"Exactly. Which is why the Democrats should look in the mirror before publishing books such as "What's the matter w/ Kansas?" which argue the Republicans often vote against their vital interests. Abortion will remain legal, hence it's not a priority to spend all your time making sure it will. A right to own private property on the other hand seems to have a better chance to fly out of the window (see eminent domain laws and rulings)."

"What's the matter w/ Kansas?" was written before SCOTUS' eminent domain decision, and I don't believe Ed Schultz agrees with that decision. I know I don't.

10/31/2005 12:15:28 PM

^ Most people from both conservative and liberal camps were upset by that Connecticut case. I think even the majority that voted for it on SCOTUS were uncomfortable with the implications of the ruling... which is why they emphasized strongly that this loophole can be closed through state legislation.

One of those strange times where pryderi is in the same camp with Scalia and Thomas...

10/31/2005 12:42:15 PM

Quote :

""What's the matter w/ Kansas?" was written before SCOTUS' eminent domain decision, and I don't believe Ed Schultz agrees with that decision. I know I don't."

OK, but my point is: I don't think a lot of liberals recognize that on a case of humongous importance (unlike any potential case on abortion, which is important in theory but not nearly as such in practice) the conservative judges voted in their interest, whereas the "liberal" side voted against them.

Now that a new nominee is put forth, the same fucking stupid set of questions is asked: "How is he gonna vote on a possible reversal of Roe vs Wade?" Who the fuck cares?

10/31/2005 12:49:30 PM

Actually, I no longer care about abortion. It can be outlawed as it won't affect me.

[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 12:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2005 12:52:11 PM

i've always heard if we were to give repubs abortion 85 percent of the country would vote for one party

10/31/2005 3:47:35 PM

i think that some of you fail to realize that overturning Roe vs Wade would not outlaw abortion in any way, shape, or form.

and even going that far would be a pretty big victory for the pro-life cause.

11/4/2005 3:15:50 PM

abortion is a two sided issue for me. I am skeptical about the issue of abortion because I think women should have rights of deciding whether they want to have the baby , I don't think the fetus should be eliminated . The fetus should not be blamed because simply just because it was a mistake. I don't see why women simply put the fetus up for adoption .

11/4/2005 4:08:08 PM

I think it simply boils down to at what point you define an unborn baby as being a human life. Nothing else.

The two convenient points are conception and birth, but i think it's somewhere in the middle (and probably closer to conception).

But regardless, I would like to reiterate my last post.

11/4/2005 5:05:41 PM

^^ because if you think the woman has the right to do as she wishes why should she have to endure a life changing/altering 9 month ordeal. not to mention i can imagine there would be many defects from mothers who just didnt give a shit. then you have to charge them with crap for drinking or eating mcdonalds all day every day, then...you get the point. dukes already got it right, you've just gotta know where you stand on when its a baby and thats your answer to the abortion question.

11/4/2005 5:10:36 PM

nah, making abortion illegal would cause too much trouble

not gonna happen

11/4/2005 6:41:39 PM

I think that someday people will realize that abortion is not a religious issue-- its a human rights issue. The powers that be in Washington will realize that a fetus is a person too and there will be much rejoicing as abortion is made illegal.

11/4/2005 6:54:47 PM

^ go to mexico... abortion is illegal there

11/4/2005 7:01:27 PM

^ No, that would be giving up. I don't give up.

11/4/2005 7:11:03 PM

well, maybe if enough mexicans come across the border you'll get your wish

11/4/2005 7:11:47 PM

^ You're contrary, you know that?

11/4/2005 7:13:57 PM

sorry, I couldn't resist "going there"

back on topic, do you really think abortion could be banned in the next 5-10 years without people going batshit crazy about it?

11/4/2005 7:18:33 PM

Quote :

"I think that someday people will realize that abortion is not a religious issue-- its a human rights issue."

i've been saying that for a long time. abortion has nothing at all to do with religion.

11/4/2005 7:19:51 PM

Quote :

"back on topic, do you really think abortion could be banned in the next 5-10 years without people going batshit crazy about it?"

If we get some people on the supreme court who understand the gravity of the issue, yes I think it could be done in 5-10 years. People will go batshit crazy, though, I'm not denying that.

Quote :

"i've been saying that for a long time. abortion has nothing at all to do with religion."

represent

11/4/2005 7:22:36 PM

^^^of course not. It would be political suicide for the republicans to ban abortion completely.

They are gonna try to make it a states' rights issue. By repealing Roe v. Wade, they will allow each state to decide their own limitations on abortion. Which will still cause a huge uproar, even if abortion is only restricted in a few red states.

Did you know that right now in some states, abortion is about the only surgical procedure that minors can get without the consent or notification of their parents?

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 7:26 PM. Reason : 1]

11/4/2005 7:26:07 PM

Quote :

"I think it simply boils down to at what point you define an unborn baby as being a human life. Nothing else."

I think the issue runs deeper than that -- because it's not "simply" when life begins anymore with new technology.

Even if I believe that life begins at conception, it is still a most opportune time to administer euthanasia. If I know from genetic tests that my child will be born with serious birth defects, should it be aborted?

I don't personally have much truck with either the pro-life or pro-choice causes, but I will say that if I had a child who would be born with a very serious birth defect -- to the extent of being crippling and leading to a life of demeaning pain -- I would be hard-pressed to forego the abortive option. There is such a thing as quality of life, too.

Life for the sake of life _is_ a religious idea, not a human rights issue. Human rights has more to do with preserving the natural sovereignty and power of an individual in a society, and therefore ensuring that the institution of government functions from the people up, and not the despot down. Giving the notion of "rights" an eternal, rather than a pragmatic, meaning has a definite religious connotation.

As to the original poster's question: no. Our politicians are too cowardly to approach the issue with any gusto. It is an appalling display of hypocrisy.

The Republican party controls both houses and the executive branch of government. They claim that abortion is murder; and therefore, one presumes that our society is committing genocide on a yearly basis.

Clearly genocide calls for immediate, swift, and harsh action.

Rather we have heard decades of hemming and hawing about activist judges this, Sandra Day O'Connor that, liberal media this, and so on ...

Anyone remember a minor political figure named Franklin Roosevelt? When he wanted his New Deal to pass, did he sit there and say "gee, the Supreme Court won't let me! Guess the American people don't get their economic relief after all!"

Now we have an issue that the Republican party deems to be genocide of epic proportions -- where's their court-packing scheme? Has the Congress lost all its authority over the judicial branch?

The Republicans are, in this regard, flaccid. They should be ashamed to show so much conviction and so little sense of urgency.

11/4/2005 9:14:17 PM

ok, i'll grant you that caveat and give you all that, except that i still maintain that it isn't a religious issue.

that isn't to say that religion can't be brough into the fight (just like basically ANY issue), but even the most hard-line atheist could be dead-set to EITHER side of the abortion debate, based on human rights and basic morality/ethics.

11/4/2005 10:31:28 PM

hope it happens. females in this country just need to keep their legs closed.
if they're not ready for a baby, then they shouldn't be makin one.

[Edited on November 4, 2005 at 10:39 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2005 10:38:28 PM

HEY LONESNARK!

Quote :

"^ They have, like 10 times. Try to keep up pryderi, speaking from the hip just doesn't cut it for someone that has a reputation for speaking from his ars. "

ars? I guess you meant "arse." While your up in mine, would you mind licking it clean?

Can you tell me who in Congress has proposed one, and when?

11/4/2005 10:41:07 PM

well, he did ask you to research it yourself. it shouldnt be that hard to find.

11/4/2005 10:42:15 PM

Quote :

"well, he did ask you to research it yourself."

He did? Where did Lonesnark ask me to research it?

11/4/2005 10:43:31 PM

I'm still waiting for LoneSnark and chembob to answer my questions. Maybe I'll just put them on the "List of people in the Soap Box who command NO respect for their opinions"

11/7/2005 7:54:17 PM

Abortion has everything to do with religion because a fetus is not a person.

11/7/2005 8:18:41 PM

True, but we can legislate anything we want to in this country.

11/7/2005 8:20:23 PM

Honestly? You are truely so stupid as to believe that not a single representative in the past 30 years would have the gaul to propose an amendment which could never pass and only a fraction of the US population wants?

Alright, fine, lets see... load up google... type in "Human Life Amendment"... very good, now, click "I'm feeling Lucky!" Bravo!

Quote :

"And they have proposed Human Life Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would reverse Roe and Doe and enshrine the right to life in the Constitution. Since 1973, more than 330 Human Life Amendment proposals have been introduced in Congress. Several sets of extensive hearings have been held. An unsuccessful Senate vote on an amendment occurred in 1983."

http://www.nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=46

11/7/2005 11:45:10 PM

^^^sounds like you missed the point

11/8/2005 7:54:37 AM

Quote :

"Anyone remember a minor political figure named Franklin Roosevelt? When he wanted his New Deal to pass, did he sit there and say "gee, the Supreme Court won't let me! Guess the American people don't get their economic relief after all!""

IIRC, his initial solution was to try and usurp the SC's power...

Quote :

"Abortion has everything to do with religion because a fetus is not a person."

wow, thank you for that thorough explanation...

I think one can look at the right to life as something wholly separate from a religious ideal. The media does often portray the pro-life side of the house as consisting solely of the religious-right, which might be their way of manipulating public opinion (OMFG!!! GET RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS AND SHIT!!!). Certainly the most vocal opponents are also ostensibly religious folks, though... But yeah, if we do view life as being important, even a right that is guaranteed by the gov't, then it we would be hard pressed to call said "right" a religious ideal. If it is actually a religious ideal, then we need to remove it from our gov't's purposes and practices.

11/8/2005 9:35:49 AM