Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on November 06, 2002, 11:11:57 AM
-
I was listening to KGO, this morning on the way to work and they where interviewing a woman from the NWACP (I think that was who she was from but I was trying to avoid hitting the jerk cutting me off.)
She was worried that in the next two years it was going to be overturned, she said the last time it came up it was a 4 to 5 vote.
Interesting. What do you all think will happen?
-
Can that be done? Has it ever been done?
Has one U.S. Supreme Court ever overturned a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling?
AKDejaVu
-
Why all the protesting if they can't?
-
Its "Roe" and the subject of abortion will probably come up again, and again be decided as Pro-Choice.
-
Unless you were making a funny i think you ment NAACP;)
-
LOLLOL
Ok yeah not meant to be funny. Like I said I was distracted when they said who she was from this morning.
Who can remeber what they all mean anyway.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Has one U.S. Supreme Court ever overturned a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the answer is... yes, plenty. I'd point to the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine" back in the mid-1930s as evidence of that.
Or Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
No...
I was being srerious.
So... it wasn't a matter of overturning a previous decision. It was a matter of making a different decision on a similar case.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I was listening to KGO, this morning on the way to work and they where interviewing a woman from the NWACP (I think that was who she was from but I was trying to avoid hitting the jerk cutting me off.)
She was worried that in the next two years it was going to be overturned, she said the last time it came up it was a 4 to 5 vote.
Interesting. What do you all think will happen?
Oops, I thought this thread was about fishing tactics.
-
They don't teach New Deal jurisprudence in public schools.
And the full cite is "Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas". The decision was specifically targeted at public schools, but was interpreted as applying to other public facilities and institutions. It overrode the previous court decision of "separate but equal" paraphrased from "Plessy vs Ferguson". And it took 58 years to do it.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
And the full cite is "Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas". The decision was specifically targeted at public schools, but was interpreted as applying to other public facilities and institutions. It overrode the previous court decision of "separate but equal" paraphrased from "Plessy vs Ferguson". And it took 58 years to do it.
I know the full cite, but I was too lazy to type it all out. :) There were actually numerous Supreme Court decisions prior to and after Brown v. Board of Education that really took the teeth out of segregation. I don't remember the citation, but there was a case several years before Brown that eliminated segregation in public higher education.
The New Deal cases are the most fun, though, because you can see the SAME Supreme Court overturn precedents it had upheld just one year earlier.
DejaVu: You're right, it's not about overturning a specific case but rather reversing a legal precedent. So the Court didn't have to rehear Plessy v. Ferguson (which was probably moot anyway since those involved were all dead) itself, but rather it chose to take cases that involved similar legal questions. Plessy v. Ferguson dealt with the legality of separate but equal facilities as did Brown v. Board, though the facts and eras were different in both... as, obviously, were the decisions.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
political suicide
too many ppl love the convenience given by the ability to legally kill their unborn babies
-
Once you are a supreme court judge you are in for as long as you want, that means they can do what they want without political repercussions. I think?
-
Its N(double A) CP or NAACP not NWACP :)
-
Originally posted by JG7_X_MAN
Its N(double A) CP or NAACP not NWACP :)
Either/or NOW. Didn't know the NAACP was that involved in Roe vs. Wade.
-
I thought he might have been making a "funny" as in the rap group NWA with referance to the NAACP.
Not a racial comment just a funny observation but it is a great way to refer to the NAACP
From now on in my book NAACP = NWACP
For those of you that might be too old to know what NWA stands for it was "Niggaz With Additudes" (good group back in the day)
spawned alot of rap artists from the LA area!
Just a lil history lesson .......
stop pull your panties out of you bellybutton before you come back to flame me on this one...
and KEEP IT REAL ;)
-
I wonder how many would vote FOR abortion if it ultimately meant thier current existance could be nullified by the past unrealised wishes of thier own mothers or grandmothers when these woman had found themselves unexpectedly and unwantingly in the "family way" years ago? [b/]
Moot point. Can't vote if you're not around.
-
political suicide
people don't like having other people's morality shoved down their throats, even if that morality was handed down by an imaginary friend in the clouds. the law will stay the same, and the people with morals will picket outside of abortion clinics and shout nice words like "potato" and "baby killer" at any women entering the clinic.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
and the people with morals will picket outside of abortion clinics and shout nice words like "potato" and "baby killer" at any women entering the clinic.
SOB
...All the while certain that they are closer to heaven than you or I.
-
Oops, I thought this thread was about fishing tactics.
answer: wade
-
Originally posted by SOB
political suicide
people don't like having other people's morality shoved down their throats, even if that morality was handed down by an imaginary friend in the clouds. the law will stay the same, and the people with morals will picket outside of abortion clinics and shout nice words like "potato" and "baby killer" at any women entering the clinic.
SOB
Actually, isn't that what all laws are, SOB? Morality inforced upon all? Pretty much all laws in the USA can be traced back to the 10 Commandments, which are in turn simply a laying out of moral values. Forget for a moment the question about where those values originated (i.e. with God or with man). Without morality, society would be...not.
Understand, the abortion debate is not about the definition of "murder," but about the definition of "life." I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people in this country (whether pro-abortion or anti-abortion) believe murder is wrong. The debate boils down to the question of when life begins, i.e. when is a fetus no longer a glob of tissue but an actual human being. Some of us believe that happens at conception. Not everyone who believes the same are necessarily driven by religious beliefs. Even those who are are not all trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. Rather they are trying to re-establish within the bounds of the law what they feel is the definition of life. We're not all right-wing fanatics, any more than all pro-abortion folks are left-wing, liberal, religion haters.
-
I think it really should be a woman's call.
But I think once the there is brain activity it is taking a life.
That is just what I believe, I would never try and force that one someone else.
I am not religious.
-
Sabre...I was just trying to get Eagler's goat, tho' I am pro choice. :) I believe the mother's rights outweigh the rights of the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever up to a certain point, despite the fact that I personally feel abortion is wrong in most cases.
As far as the laws/morality issue is concerned, I think there's more to it than just that. Murder is immoral, but the important fact is it affects other people, not that the murderer lacks values.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Understand, the abortion debate is not about the definition of "murder," but about the definition of "life." I think it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people in this country (whether pro-abortion or anti-abortion) believe murder is wrong. The debate boils down to the question of when life begins, i.e. when is a fetus no longer a glob of tissue but an actual human being. Some of us believe that happens at conception. Not everyone who believes the same are necessarily driven by religious beliefs. Even those who are are not all trying to impose their religious beliefs on others. Rather they are trying to re-establish within the bounds of the law what they feel is the definition of life. We're not all right-wing fanatics, any more than all pro-abortion folks are left-wing, liberal, religion haters.
When the fetus becomes human is a spiritual argument.
Bottom line... a fetus is a parasite and all the rights belong to the host.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
When the fetus becomes human is a spiritual argument.
Bottom line... a fetus is a parasite and all the rights belong to the host.
Gotta call a spade a spade, eh Sandman?
For all intents and purposes that is the basis of the Pro-Choice arguement. When the fetus achives viability outside the uterus, it is an idependentent entity and thus has moral authority of it's own.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Gotta call a spade a spade, eh Sandman?
For all intents and purposes that is the basis of the Pro-Choice arguement. When the fetus achives viability outside the uterus, it is an idependentent entity and thus has moral authority of it's own.
Might as well put it out there... :)
It's been a few years since we did all that pre-natal lamaz training stuff... IIRC, the woman's immune system is trying to terminate the fetus as well.
-
When does a zygote become a human?
Brain activity?
Spinal chord development?
Facial expresion?
Cellular differentiation?
When the sperm enters the egg?
Who will decide this not so black and white question?
One thing that kinda makes me crack up is that the Anti-choice guys want to identify the embryo as early as possible, when there is no discernable differentiation between a human and a deer.
But they would have no qualms about pulling the trigger on bambi when it is decidedly well past the "viable" stage.
If you don't want the woman deciding what to do with the fetus then don't give her one.
-
What MT said
the human being is becomes a thinking entity at day 49 post conception, when the embryonic pineal gland releases n,nDimethyltryptamine into the cerebrospinal fluid. This is a theory, I admit. (Rick Strassman and others came up with it).
Fetal Viability Age is constantly being pushed back towards this moment, but has some way to go. The point being that if we take the argument :
' Abortion acceptable until fetus is viable outside womb'
then this window is shrinking.
IMO it's woman's right to choose. Women have been aborting their children since the year dot. No-one is going to stop that, but repressive legislation against abortion (i.e complete ban) will only force women into dangerous, non medical methods.
No one is saying that abortion is nice, but for a country where mentally subnormal inmates are regularly executed, the 'pro-life' campaign is missing the point IMO.
I can certainly understand that it's an enormously emotive issue, but if we are to be guided by the ten commandments and the teachings of Jesus, we should approach women who want to abort their fetuses with compassion love and understanding, not hate, threats and violence.
As a man, one can have no meaningful conception (pun intended) of what it must be like to:a) be pregnant and b)be in the tragic position of having to choose between giving birth to an unloved, unwanted, possibly malformed or congenitally disabled child, and terminating the 'life' of a fetus. That's not to ignore the phenomenon of 'convenience abortions' :
"I'm off to Aspen for a fortninghts skiing, I can't possibly be pregnant" (it does happen but it is comparatively rare).
There should be a limit on when abortions can be carried out. No one wants to see babies delivered by caesarean and then 'terminated'.
Also many brands of Contraceptive pills for women prevent successful implantation, but not necessarily conception, and as such are functionally equivalent with abortion. (if you believe that the human being is created at the moment of conception).
That's where the abortion debate belongs, IMO, in defining and refining that crucial rubicon moment when suddenly the unborn child is granted equal rights to the mother.
And FWIW 'Morals' has its roots in 'Mores' meaning 'Custom', no divine origin has ever been demonstrated.
-
I think you would have to be a nazi to think that abortion in the last few weeks is acceptable. I also think that some woman who comes back from a party and doesn't remember what she did last night should have the option to alleviate a mistake. (rape and incest is a given)
Even though I think the above, I think that the Pro-life folks have the most defensible position.
When does viability occur? Is it different when across the street from John-Hopkins pre-mie ward than it would be in the Yukon? How can ethics be geographically specific?
What happens in the future when someone in animal husbandry field develops an artificial womb?
Just food for thought..
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think you would have to be a nazi to think that abortion in the last few weeks is acceptable. I also think that some woman who comes back from a party and doesn't remember what she did last night should have the option to alleviate a mistake. (rape and incest is a given)
Even though I think the above, I think that the Pro-life folks have the most defensible position.
When does viability occur? Is it different when across the street from John-Hopkins pre-mie ward than it would be in the Yukon? How can ethics be geographically specific?
What happens in the future when someone in animal husbandry field develops an artificial womb?
Just food for thought..
roadkill... the pro-life folks want to impose their morals on someone else. They want to set up criteria for when a woman can or cannot do what she likes with her own body. Leave it to the woman. She's the ultimate authority of her own body. Not the court, not the state, not you or anyone else.
Once again... late term abortions are exceedingly dangerous. They are not done on a whim or because a woman simply decides to terminate a pregancy. They are done in dire circumstances. Given the choice between her own life or the life of an unborn child, the mother should be able to choose her life first.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
"But they would have no qualms about pulling the trigger on bambi when it is decidedly well past the "viable" stage. "
You're equating a fetus with food?
Oed
think about it Oed...
Actually MT, this is the Dolphin-Tuna argument...People who buy Dolphin safe tuna because it doesnt involve killing of the cute wuvable Dolphins (not too toejam hot fot the tuna though). Some cultures eat Dolphins - to them it's just a big fish, but we are horrified they could eat Flipper. Dolphin or Tuna?
Dolphins are cute and we give them human traits therefore have a high value compared to just a fish.
A deer doesn't really compete with a lovable baby with those people.
I've seen some protesters who equate life beginning with sperm!
Imagine that, when you knock the top off it...oh the horror, the horror! :D
It's a woman's body, you shouldn't legislate what must happen to it.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
When the fetus becomes human is a spiritual argument.
Bottom line... a fetus is a parasite and all the rights belong to the host.
I respectfully dissagree, unequivocally on the first count, and with priviso on the second. When a fetus becomes a human being does not necessisarily have to rely on a spiritually driven idea. As pointed out elsewhere in this post, there are any number of scientifically demonstrabile criteria that can be used to decide this. It is up to society to determine which should be used. By your definition, if taken literally, until the child leaves the womb it should not be considered a human at all (indeed, animals would have more protection under the law than the unborn human child). Communist China in fact agrees with you: until the baby takes it's first breath outside the womb, it is not only okay to kill it, but is mandated by law if it is a second child (the "One-child policy." My goal is not the elimination of legal abortion, by the way, but the reduction in the numbers of them. Specifically, the elimination of abortions of convenience, undertaken for no other reason than the mother doesn't want to carry the child to term.
Which leads me to your second point, that it's the mother's choice. Again, we agree on the principle but not on certain definitions. In my mind, it's about personal responsibility. If the woman is raped, for example, than an abortion should be an option for her. After all, she had no choice (you're for choice, right?). If she engages in consensual sex, than did she not choose to assume responsibility for the consequences of her actions? By the way, I also believe in a man being responsible as well. If he lends his sperm willingly to the creation of a child, he has equal responsiblity to support and care for that child. That should also entitle him to certain rights regarding the child, such as sharing custody, if the parents aren't already co-habitating.
Again, where most people on both sides of this devisive issue differ is on the question of when an unborn child becomes a human being. I understand your position on it. I just wanted to explain mine, without the usual rancor and emotionalism that marks most of these debates.
-
In my mind...I am Pro-Choice.
If the woman wants to abort her pregnancy in the very early stages, then it should be her choice.
Wouldn't having a law making that illegal violate a woman's rights in some way?
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Can that be done? Has it ever been done?
Has one U.S. Supreme Court ever overturned a previous U.S. Supreme Court ruling?
AKDejaVu
Yes, Dredd Scott.
-
It's funny.
Here we have a bunch of men trying to tell women what to do and being perfectly safe for the consequence, since there is no chance in hell the men will suffer the consequencs of their decision.
Hell, if I had no chance at all to say have a car accident and the other half of the population had, I'd argue passionately that seat belts should be removed from cars since they make them more expensive.
Nothing would happen to ME if it came through, and that seems to be the important part here.
Those that ought to make the decision is those that will be influenced by it.
And can the murder crap. It's rich coming from people who support the killing of imbecilles, juveniles and the mentally insane.
-
Most of the folks against abortion are the same folks claimin' they got no prollem whippin' out the scapel to excise some kinda gay gene.
erhm... gonna let the irony of that speak for itself.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yes, Dredd Scott.
I'm pretty sure that new post-Civil War constitutional amendments invalidated Dredd Scott, not later Supreme Court rulings.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I respectfully dissagree, unequivocally on the first count, and with priviso on the second. When a fetus becomes a human being does not necessisarily have to rely on a spiritually driven idea. As pointed out elsewhere in this post, there are any number of scientifically demonstrabile criteria that can be used to decide this. It is up to society to determine which should be used. By your definition, if taken literally, until the child leaves the womb it should not be considered a human at all (indeed, animals would have more protection under the law than the unborn human child
Don't mean to speak for you Sandman, but no. That's not what he his saying at all. It's not about leaving the womb. It's about viability outside the womb. At about five months the fetus becomes a viable human outside of the uterus. Everything else is gravey. It leads to better develope lungs etc. It's better for the fetus if it stays in, for the most part. But it doesn't NEED it to exist. There is the difference.
And I imagine, based on this thread at least, that a fair bit more thought went into the moral significance of a fetus in this state, than the moral significance of a single cell zygote.
-
I don't know if this has ever happened, but I think I'm going to agree with Thrawn. ;) For all intents and purposes, a fetus really is a parasite for over half of the typical human gestation period. It is incapable of sustaining its own life without drawing on a host organism for protection and nurishment. Now, as for when the fetus is able to survive on its own (albeit with lots of help from hospital machinery and doctors), I don't really know, it's not my area of expertise. Once it is capable of living on it's own, then I'd consider it a living, breathing (once out) human being, with just as much right to live as the two people who spawned it.