Ah, you have stumbled on one of the more subtle ways in which this issue is obfuscated by the pro-abortionists...

Originally Posted by elilevin

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted.

My emphasis is added here... because this is how the obfuscation begins. It changes from an argument about the life of the mother into one about her health... and health then becomes her mental and physical health which then becomes her wellbeing! Cut to the chase!!! There is an elephant in the corner here, and that elephant is the fact that there is a large section of the population of this country that want abortion to be legal, accessible and affordable to everyone because they want the ability to eliminate, hide and generally avoid admitting that their behavior has led to a very foreseeable consequence. These people don't feel they should be forced to live with any consequences of their behavior - because that means that someone has judged them, and that's bad. So, they begin rationalizing it in their own mind that they're supporting it "for the mothers wellbeing," and that "it's not killing, it's just disposing of a lump of tissue." If by adopting these rationalizations they can help themselves and like minded people avoid embarrassment, inconvenience and responsibility, then so be it!

If these people are ever forced to admit that bad behavior results in bad consequences, they would have to admit that either they used bad judgment, or that they espouse an ideology that society deems wrong - neither of which they can bring themselves to do!

I do not think ill of anyone who, like elilevin or Kiff, struggle over this issue. I truly believe your honest compassion for people is what guides you. I too have compassion for people who make mistakes in judgment, mistakes with consequences that can affect many lives. But nature, the same nature that many pro-abortionists also fight to protect, has no compassion for such mistakes. Mistakes have consequences, plain and simple. Drink - drive - kill someone or yourself. Do drugs - become addicted - OD or become a slave to your addiction. Smoke cigarettes - get cancer - die. You can put all the frilly feel-good excuses around it you want - bad family life, bad neighborhood, evil corporations - but it all comes down to personal choice and taking responsibilities for those choices.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal compassion for people who make these mistakes - my own mother made the last one :cry: - but nature is what it is, and we're fooling ourselves by thinking we can alter that.

My sister had an abortion when she was 22... that was in 1975! Sure she avoided the obvious inconvenience and life changing responsibility that comes with a baby, but now a mother of two great kids, she admitted to me that she wonders what could have been. Now, we all have regrets, but I can't even imagine the anguished regret of knowing you prevented a life from being. I have to wonder, (as does she) just which option was truly in the best interest of her health and well being!

Ah, you have stumbled on one of the more subtle ways in which this issue is obfuscated by the pro-abortionists...

Originally Posted by elilevin

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted.

My emphasis is added here... because this is how the obfuscation begins. It changes from an argument about the life of the mother into one about her health... and health then becomes her mental and physical health which then becomes her wellbeing! Cut to the chase!!! There is an elephant in the corner here, and that elephant is the fact that there is a large section of the population of this country that want abortion to be legal, accessible and affordable to everyone because they want the ability to eliminate, hide and generally avoid admitting that their behavior has led to a very foreseeable consequence. These people don't feel they should be forced to live with any consequences of their behavior - because that means that someone has judged them, and that's bad. So, they begin rationalizing it in their own mind that they're supporting it "for the mothers wellbeing," and that "it's not killing, it's just disposing of a lump of tissue." If by adopting these rationalizations they can help themselves and like minded people avoid embarrassment, inconvenience and responsibility, then so be it!

If these people are ever forced to admit that bad behavior results in bad consequences, they would have to admit that either they used bad judgment, or that they espouse an ideology that society deems wrong - neither of which they can bring themselves to do!

I do not think ill of anyone who, like elilevin or Kiff, struggle over this issue. I truly believe your honest compassion for people is what guides you. I too have compassion for people who make mistakes in judgment, mistakes with consequences that can affect many lives. But nature, the same nature that many pro-abortionists also fight to protect, has no compassion for such mistakes. Mistakes have consequences, plain and simple. Drink - drive - kill someone or yourself. Do drugs - become addicted - OD or become a slave to your addiction. Smoke cigarettes - get cancer - die. You can put all the frilly feel-good excuses around it you want - bad family life, bad neighborhood, evil corporations - but it all comes down to personal choice and taking responsibilities for those choices.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal compassion for people who make these mistakes - my own mother made the last one :cry: - but nature is what it is, and we're fooling ourselves by thinking we can alter that.

My sister had an abortion when she was 22... that was in 1975! Sure she avoided the obvious inconvenience and life changing responsibility that comes with a baby, but now a mother of two great kids, she admitted to me that she wonders what could have been. Now, we all have regrets, but I can't even imagine the anguished regret of knowing you prevented a life from being. I have to wonder, (as does she) just which option was truly in the best interest of her health and well being!

Ah, you have stumbled on one of the more subtle ways in which this issue is obfuscated by the pro-abortionists...

Originally Posted by elilevin

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted.

My emphasis is added here... because this is how the obfuscation begins. It changes from an argument about the life of the mother into one about her health... and health then becomes her mental and physical health which then becomes her wellbeing! Cut to the chase!!! There is an elephant in the corner here, and that elephant is the fact that there is a large section of the population of this country that want abortion to be legal, accessible and affordable to everyone because they want the ability to eliminate, hide and generally avoid admitting that their behavior has led to a very foreseeable consequence. These people don't feel they should be forced to live with any consequences of their behavior - because that means that someone has judged them, and that's bad. So, they begin rationalizing it in their own mind that they're supporting it "for the mothers wellbeing," and that "it's not killing, it's just disposing of a lump of tissue." If by adopting these rationalizations they can help themselves and like minded people avoid embarrassment, inconvenience and responsibility, then so be it!

If these people are ever forced to admit that bad behavior results in bad consequences, they would have to admit that either they used bad judgment, or that they espouse an ideology that society deems wrong - neither of which they can bring themselves to do!

I do not think ill of anyone who, like elilevin or Kiff, struggle over this issue. I truly believe your honest compassion for people is what guides you. I too have compassion for people who make mistakes in judgment, mistakes with consequences that can affect many lives. But nature, the same nature that many pro-abortionists also fight to protect, has no compassion for such mistakes. Mistakes have consequences, plain and simple. Drink - drive - kill someone or yourself. Do drugs - become addicted - OD or become a slave to your addiction. Smoke cigarettes - get cancer - die. You can put all the frilly feel-good excuses around it you want - bad family life, bad neighborhood, evil corporations - but it all comes down to personal choice and taking responsibilities for those choices.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal compassion for people who make these mistakes - my own mother made the last one :cry: - but nature is what it is, and we're fooling ourselves by thinking we can alter that.

My sister had an abortion when she was 22... that was in 1975! Sure she avoided the obvious inconvenience and life changing responsibility that comes with a baby, but now a mother of two great kids, she admitted to me that she wonders what could have been. Now, we all have regrets, but I can't even imagine the anguished regret of knowing you prevented a life from being. I have to wonder, (as does she) just which option was truly in the best interest of her health and well being!

Originally Posted by Steve61

Ah, you have stumbled on one of the more subtle ways in which this issue is obfuscated by the pro-abortionists...

I prefer either "pro-choicers" or "abortion rights advocates," but whatever...

Originally Posted by elilevin

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted.

My emphasis is added here... because this is how the obfuscation begins. It changes from an argument about the life of the mother into one about her health... and health then becomes her mental and physical health which then becomes her wellbeing! Cut to the chase!!! There is an elephant in the corner here, and that elephant is the fact that there is a large section of the population of this country that want abortion to be legal, accessible and affordable to everyone because they want the ability to eliminate, hide and generally avoid admitting that their behavior has led to a very foreseeable consequence.

Sure, Steve, but it's not always their behavior that is at fault. What about women who are survivors of rape and incest? Why should they be forced to bear the children of the men that attacked them? Now, granted, there are some women who choose to bear these children anyway, and I respect that. But I also respect the decisions of those women who choose not to; there may be very legitimate reasons behind them.

I think we need to trust women to make the right choices for themselves.

And there are women out there who would be at great physical risk if they were to become pregnant and attempt to carry a child to term. I believe Elisheva has already addressed this. In such cases, if it's a choice between the baby and the mother, I believe the mother's right to life trumps the child's. Thinking about the alternative makes me feel sick. But of course these are extreme cases.

I do not think ill of anyone who, like elilevin or Kiff, struggle over this issue. I truly believe your honest compassion for people is what guides you. I too have compassion for people who make mistakes in judgment, mistakes with consequences that can affect many lives.

Thanks. I appreciate it. :-)

But nature, the same nature that many pro-abortionists also fight to protect, has no compassion for such mistakes. Mistakes have consequences, plain and simple. Drink - drive - kill someone or yourself. Do drugs - become addicted - OD or become a slave to your addiction. Smoke cigarettes - get cancer - die. You can put all the frilly feel-good excuses around it you want - bad family life, bad neighborhood, evil corporations - but it all comes down to personal choice and taking responsibilities for those choices.

I would just add that all of the above are risky behaviors, but the consequences aren't automatic. That's why people do them anyway, even if they get warning after warning up the wazoo. Sometimes we get away with things, and sometimes we don't.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal compassion for people who make these mistakes - my own mother made the last one :cry: - but nature is what it is, and we're fooling ourselves by thinking we can alter that.

I am sorry about your mother, Steve. :-(

Originally Posted by Steve61

Ah, you have stumbled on one of the more subtle ways in which this issue is obfuscated by the pro-abortionists...

I prefer either "pro-choicers" or "abortion rights advocates," but whatever...

Originally Posted by elilevin

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted.

My emphasis is added here... because this is how the obfuscation begins. It changes from an argument about the life of the mother into one about her health... and health then becomes her mental and physical health which then becomes her wellbeing! Cut to the chase!!! There is an elephant in the corner here, and that elephant is the fact that there is a large section of the population of this country that want abortion to be legal, accessible and affordable to everyone because they want the ability to eliminate, hide and generally avoid admitting that their behavior has led to a very foreseeable consequence.

Sure, Steve, but it's not always their behavior that is at fault. What about women who are survivors of rape and incest? Why should they be forced to bear the children of the men that attacked them? Now, granted, there are some women who choose to bear these children anyway, and I respect that. But I also respect the decisions of those women who choose not to; there may be very legitimate reasons behind them.

I think we need to trust women to make the right choices for themselves.

And there are women out there who would be at great physical risk if they were to become pregnant and attempt to carry a child to term. I believe Elisheva has already addressed this. In such cases, if it's a choice between the baby and the mother, I believe the mother's right to life trumps the child's. Thinking about the alternative makes me feel sick. But of course these are extreme cases.

I do not think ill of anyone who, like elilevin or Kiff, struggle over this issue. I truly believe your honest compassion for people is what guides you. I too have compassion for people who make mistakes in judgment, mistakes with consequences that can affect many lives.

Thanks. I appreciate it. :-)

But nature, the same nature that many pro-abortionists also fight to protect, has no compassion for such mistakes. Mistakes have consequences, plain and simple. Drink - drive - kill someone or yourself. Do drugs - become addicted - OD or become a slave to your addiction. Smoke cigarettes - get cancer - die. You can put all the frilly feel-good excuses around it you want - bad family life, bad neighborhood, evil corporations - but it all comes down to personal choice and taking responsibilities for those choices.

I would just add that all of the above are risky behaviors, but the consequences aren't automatic. That's why people do them anyway, even if they get warning after warning up the wazoo. Sometimes we get away with things, and sometimes we don't.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal compassion for people who make these mistakes - my own mother made the last one :cry: - but nature is what it is, and we're fooling ourselves by thinking we can alter that.

I am sorry about your mother, Steve. :-(

Originally Posted by Steve61

Ah, you have stumbled on one of the more subtle ways in which this issue is obfuscated by the pro-abortionists...

I prefer either "pro-choicers" or "abortion rights advocates," but whatever...

Originally Posted by elilevin

My argument for the right of a woman to make such a decision is that there are real situations in which a woman must make such a decision for grave reasons: there are real life-and-death situations or situations in which the mother's health will be heavily impacted.

My emphasis is added here... because this is how the obfuscation begins. It changes from an argument about the life of the mother into one about her health... and health then becomes her mental and physical health which then becomes her wellbeing! Cut to the chase!!! There is an elephant in the corner here, and that elephant is the fact that there is a large section of the population of this country that want abortion to be legal, accessible and affordable to everyone because they want the ability to eliminate, hide and generally avoid admitting that their behavior has led to a very foreseeable consequence.

Sure, Steve, but it's not always their behavior that is at fault. What about women who are survivors of rape and incest? Why should they be forced to bear the children of the men that attacked them? Now, granted, there are some women who choose to bear these children anyway, and I respect that. But I also respect the decisions of those women who choose not to; there may be very legitimate reasons behind them.

I think we need to trust women to make the right choices for themselves.

And there are women out there who would be at great physical risk if they were to become pregnant and attempt to carry a child to term. I believe Elisheva has already addressed this. In such cases, if it's a choice between the baby and the mother, I believe the mother's right to life trumps the child's. Thinking about the alternative makes me feel sick. But of course these are extreme cases.

I do not think ill of anyone who, like elilevin or Kiff, struggle over this issue. I truly believe your honest compassion for people is what guides you. I too have compassion for people who make mistakes in judgment, mistakes with consequences that can affect many lives.

Thanks. I appreciate it. :-)

But nature, the same nature that many pro-abortionists also fight to protect, has no compassion for such mistakes. Mistakes have consequences, plain and simple. Drink - drive - kill someone or yourself. Do drugs - become addicted - OD or become a slave to your addiction. Smoke cigarettes - get cancer - die. You can put all the frilly feel-good excuses around it you want - bad family life, bad neighborhood, evil corporations - but it all comes down to personal choice and taking responsibilities for those choices.

I would just add that all of the above are risky behaviors, but the consequences aren't automatic. That's why people do them anyway, even if they get warning after warning up the wazoo. Sometimes we get away with things, and sometimes we don't.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal compassion for people who make these mistakes - my own mother made the last one :cry: - but nature is what it is, and we're fooling ourselves by thinking we can alter that.

I am sorry about your mother, Steve. :-(

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

You claim, "Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works."

This is true in such countries as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia where dictatorships rule within the confines of Marxist dictum of "opium of the masses." In America we tend to base a lot of public policy on the latest "scientific study." Why else do you think SUVs are under such fire right now?

Look again at what I said. Science itself does not and cannot make moral or ethical judgements. People may use the information that science offers to develop those judgements but science as science does not dictate what they should be. The dictatorships that you mention may or may not use information that science provides to make all kinds of ethical claims as does any other regime. Judgements passed on those claims is again done by people who use various ways of human knowing.

Scientists, being people, do make ethical judgements using moral and ethical precepts they derive from other areas of human knowing.

That some "science" turns out to be bogus, like global warming, does not discount that other revelations aren't helpful to the public. Like the big Alar scare back in the eighties. :wink:

As Mark Twain once said: Saying so don't make it so. There is much scientific evidence for global warming. There is a great deal of evidence that points to the causes of it. What we choose to do about that is not a scientific decision but rather is political and ethical.

As far as "revelations that aren't helpful to the public" go, science only ferrets out and publishes the information. Science works well when information, experimental results and theories are freely shared among the community of scientists. It is the dictators that you mentioned above who choose to withhold information from the public. I do not admire that much.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

You claim, "Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works."

This is true in such countries as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia where dictatorships rule within the confines of Marxist dictum of "opium of the masses." In America we tend to base a lot of public policy on the latest "scientific study." Why else do you think SUVs are under such fire right now?

Look again at what I said. Science itself does not and cannot make moral or ethical judgements. People may use the information that science offers to develop those judgements but science as science does not dictate what they should be. The dictatorships that you mention may or may not use information that science provides to make all kinds of ethical claims as does any other regime. Judgements passed on those claims is again done by people who use various ways of human knowing.

Scientists, being people, do make ethical judgements using moral and ethical precepts they derive from other areas of human knowing.

That some "science" turns out to be bogus, like global warming, does not discount that other revelations aren't helpful to the public. Like the big Alar scare back in the eighties. :wink:

As Mark Twain once said: Saying so don't make it so. There is much scientific evidence for global warming. There is a great deal of evidence that points to the causes of it. What we choose to do about that is not a scientific decision but rather is political and ethical.

As far as "revelations that aren't helpful to the public" go, science only ferrets out and publishes the information. Science works well when information, experimental results and theories are freely shared among the community of scientists. It is the dictators that you mentioned above who choose to withhold information from the public. I do not admire that much.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

You claim, "Science does not develop legal or ethical mandates. It does describe and probe the material world to find out how it works."

This is true in such countries as Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia where dictatorships rule within the confines of Marxist dictum of "opium of the masses." In America we tend to base a lot of public policy on the latest "scientific study." Why else do you think SUVs are under such fire right now?

Look again at what I said. Science itself does not and cannot make moral or ethical judgements. People may use the information that science offers to develop those judgements but science as science does not dictate what they should be. The dictatorships that you mention may or may not use information that science provides to make all kinds of ethical claims as does any other regime. Judgements passed on those claims is again done by people who use various ways of human knowing.

Scientists, being people, do make ethical judgements using moral and ethical precepts they derive from other areas of human knowing.

That some "science" turns out to be bogus, like global warming, does not discount that other revelations aren't helpful to the public. Like the big Alar scare back in the eighties. :wink:

As Mark Twain once said: Saying so don't make it so. There is much scientific evidence for global warming. There is a great deal of evidence that points to the causes of it. What we choose to do about that is not a scientific decision but rather is political and ethical.

As far as "revelations that aren't helpful to the public" go, science only ferrets out and publishes the information. Science works well when information, experimental results and theories are freely shared among the community of scientists. It is the dictators that you mentioned above who choose to withhold information from the public. I do not admire that much.

Originally Posted by elilevin

I made two different statements in my previous post on this subject. At the beginning I pointed out one reason why Roe was construed as a privacy issue by the people that decided it. It is because medical decisions are not and have not been the business of the US Government. I would be greatly offended if, for example, Uncle Sam stepped in to tell me that I could not have a Ceasarian Section. This does not necessarily make it bad law. What makes it bad law is whether or not the courts have the right to make law at all....

I agree. For this to be accomplished we must use social sanctions for immoral behavior. I do not want the US Government cast in the role of a moral policeman. I do not want my liberties limited by the opinions of some hot-farting fundamentalist. I will take moral responsibility for my actions, thank-you!

Before Roe, Uncle Sam, in large part was NOT the moral policeman. The Cop on the Beat was your several State governments with a wide variety of ideas as to what "community" policing was to be. That condition returned would be most welcome on my part in this matter and a great many more...the Tobacco fundamentalists for example or the .08 enthusiasts who have MADD-ened the Feds into tyranny. HTH

Originally Posted by elilevin

I made two different statements in my previous post on this subject. At the beginning I pointed out one reason why Roe was construed as a privacy issue by the people that decided it. It is because medical decisions are not and have not been the business of the US Government. I would be greatly offended if, for example, Uncle Sam stepped in to tell me that I could not have a Ceasarian Section. This does not necessarily make it bad law. What makes it bad law is whether or not the courts have the right to make law at all....

I agree. For this to be accomplished we must use social sanctions for immoral behavior. I do not want the US Government cast in the role of a moral policeman. I do not want my liberties limited by the opinions of some hot-farting fundamentalist. I will take moral responsibility for my actions, thank-you!

Before Roe, Uncle Sam, in large part was NOT the moral policeman. The Cop on the Beat was your several State governments with a wide variety of ideas as to what "community" policing was to be. That condition returned would be most welcome on my part in this matter and a great many more...the Tobacco fundamentalists for example or the .08 enthusiasts who have MADD-ened the Feds into tyranny. HTH

Originally Posted by elilevin

I made two different statements in my previous post on this subject. At the beginning I pointed out one reason why Roe was construed as a privacy issue by the people that decided it. It is because medical decisions are not and have not been the business of the US Government. I would be greatly offended if, for example, Uncle Sam stepped in to tell me that I could not have a Ceasarian Section. This does not necessarily make it bad law. What makes it bad law is whether or not the courts have the right to make law at all....

I agree. For this to be accomplished we must use social sanctions for immoral behavior. I do not want the US Government cast in the role of a moral policeman. I do not want my liberties limited by the opinions of some hot-farting fundamentalist. I will take moral responsibility for my actions, thank-you!

Before Roe, Uncle Sam, in large part was NOT the moral policeman. The Cop on the Beat was your several State governments with a wide variety of ideas as to what "community" policing was to be. That condition returned would be most welcome on my part in this matter and a great many more...the Tobacco fundamentalists for example or the .08 enthusiasts who have MADD-ened the Feds into tyranny. HTH

Alex:

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Of course the Second Amendment hasn't been repealed, but it is not enforced, and cannot be acted upon.

Few on either side of the gun-control debate have a clear understanding of what the Second Amendment is about. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, or self-defense on an individual basis. Nor is it a collective right -- rather, it is an individual right that serves a collective purpose. While the collective purpose does not legally limit the right, it does serve to clarify exactly what the right entails.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the right of citizens to maintain military grade weapons -- though not necessarily to own them -- and have them ready for use in a military context, in an organized and "well regulated" militia, to repel invasion, to put down insurrection or riot, or, at extreme need, to defend the states against encroachment on their sovereignty by the federal government. In the original conception of the founders, the militia of armed citizens was intended to serve in place of a standing army, which they feared as a threat to liberty.

If the Second Amendment were properly respected in national policy today, individual citizens would have the right to keep and maintain in readiness (though again, not necessarily to own) military arms and equipment comparable to what is in use in the U.S. Army. That includes not only small-arms but also tanks, fighter aircraft, missiles, grenades, etc. It would not, I think, extend to warships, nor to nuclear weapons, but would include virtually every other kind of armament in the military today. The Second Amendment would not, however, guarantee the right to keep and bear hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns, or other weapons of dubious military utility, unless those were the only weapons available (and our society is wealthy enough they would not be).

Why don't we use such a system today? Because it was used for its extreme purpose, the defense of the states against the federal government, in the years from 1861 to 1865. The consequences were so appalling that the nation quietly turned away from the idea of a militia. (Stonewall is correct that Theodore Roosevelt proposed the National Guard as a substitute; constitutionally, he was of course completely wrong, but the solution works as a practical matter.)

It would have been better IMO to simply repeal the Second Amendment, rather than burying it as we have done. But most Americans regard the Bill of Rights as sacrosanct and not to be tampered with.

Stonewall:

However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

Well, as Ms. Levin has stated in some detail, medically life (unlike the status of being a human being) is pretty easily defined, and so it can be determined that not only is an embryo alive at the moment of conception, but so is the ovum and sperm of which it is composed, prior to conception. And so are the organs which produce those cells, and the embryo which developed those organs, and the sperm and ova which mated to produce that embryo, and so on. Life is a continuum; the only meaningful "beginning" of life lies in the primordial origin in the primal soup.

It is quite impossible, of course, to protect the right to life of every sperm and ovum, or of every living human cell. That makes the "beginning of life" standard not a useful one. What we need to determine, instead, is when the (unquestionably living and human) embryo becomes a human being. Unlike life, that term can't be medically defined. Once we do define it, however, it can be medically determined.

The Establishment Clause merely prohibited establishment of a state religion on the part of the federal government.

Well, not quite. The actual language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is rather more vague and encompassing than the more straightforward "Congress shall not establish a state religion." It is held nowadays that an act of Congress, or of any branch of the government, which gives preference to any specific religion over others, or to religion in general over non-religion, "respects" an establishment of religion (although granted, it does not fully establish one). I'm not sure what reasoning exempts prayer in Congress, but one could argue that this is for the benefit of Congress itself, and not anything the public is required to participate in.

Alex:

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Of course the Second Amendment hasn't been repealed, but it is not enforced, and cannot be acted upon.

Few on either side of the gun-control debate have a clear understanding of what the Second Amendment is about. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, or self-defense on an individual basis. Nor is it a collective right -- rather, it is an individual right that serves a collective purpose. While the collective purpose does not legally limit the right, it does serve to clarify exactly what the right entails.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the right of citizens to maintain military grade weapons -- though not necessarily to own them -- and have them ready for use in a military context, in an organized and "well regulated" militia, to repel invasion, to put down insurrection or riot, or, at extreme need, to defend the states against encroachment on their sovereignty by the federal government. In the original conception of the founders, the militia of armed citizens was intended to serve in place of a standing army, which they feared as a threat to liberty.

If the Second Amendment were properly respected in national policy today, individual citizens would have the right to keep and maintain in readiness (though again, not necessarily to own) military arms and equipment comparable to what is in use in the U.S. Army. That includes not only small-arms but also tanks, fighter aircraft, missiles, grenades, etc. It would not, I think, extend to warships, nor to nuclear weapons, but would include virtually every other kind of armament in the military today. The Second Amendment would not, however, guarantee the right to keep and bear hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns, or other weapons of dubious military utility, unless those were the only weapons available (and our society is wealthy enough they would not be).

Why don't we use such a system today? Because it was used for its extreme purpose, the defense of the states against the federal government, in the years from 1861 to 1865. The consequences were so appalling that the nation quietly turned away from the idea of a militia. (Stonewall is correct that Theodore Roosevelt proposed the National Guard as a substitute; constitutionally, he was of course completely wrong, but the solution works as a practical matter.)

It would have been better IMO to simply repeal the Second Amendment, rather than burying it as we have done. But most Americans regard the Bill of Rights as sacrosanct and not to be tampered with.

Stonewall:

However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

Well, as Ms. Levin has stated in some detail, medically life (unlike the status of being a human being) is pretty easily defined, and so it can be determined that not only is an embryo alive at the moment of conception, but so is the ovum and sperm of which it is composed, prior to conception. And so are the organs which produce those cells, and the embryo which developed those organs, and the sperm and ova which mated to produce that embryo, and so on. Life is a continuum; the only meaningful "beginning" of life lies in the primordial origin in the primal soup.

It is quite impossible, of course, to protect the right to life of every sperm and ovum, or of every living human cell. That makes the "beginning of life" standard not a useful one. What we need to determine, instead, is when the (unquestionably living and human) embryo becomes a human being. Unlike life, that term can't be medically defined. Once we do define it, however, it can be medically determined.

The Establishment Clause merely prohibited establishment of a state religion on the part of the federal government.

Well, not quite. The actual language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is rather more vague and encompassing than the more straightforward "Congress shall not establish a state religion." It is held nowadays that an act of Congress, or of any branch of the government, which gives preference to any specific religion over others, or to religion in general over non-religion, "respects" an establishment of religion (although granted, it does not fully establish one). I'm not sure what reasoning exempts prayer in Congress, but one could argue that this is for the benefit of Congress itself, and not anything the public is required to participate in.

Alex:

Just because an amendment or law may be obsolete does not mean that the amendment is automatically repealed. The matter of fact is that the amendment is still a part of the United States Constitution, and as such, Americans still have the right to bear arms.

Of course the Second Amendment hasn't been repealed, but it is not enforced, and cannot be acted upon.

Few on either side of the gun-control debate have a clear understanding of what the Second Amendment is about. It has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, or self-defense on an individual basis. Nor is it a collective right -- rather, it is an individual right that serves a collective purpose. While the collective purpose does not legally limit the right, it does serve to clarify exactly what the right entails.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the right of citizens to maintain military grade weapons -- though not necessarily to own them -- and have them ready for use in a military context, in an organized and "well regulated" militia, to repel invasion, to put down insurrection or riot, or, at extreme need, to defend the states against encroachment on their sovereignty by the federal government. In the original conception of the founders, the militia of armed citizens was intended to serve in place of a standing army, which they feared as a threat to liberty.

If the Second Amendment were properly respected in national policy today, individual citizens would have the right to keep and maintain in readiness (though again, not necessarily to own) military arms and equipment comparable to what is in use in the U.S. Army. That includes not only small-arms but also tanks, fighter aircraft, missiles, grenades, etc. It would not, I think, extend to warships, nor to nuclear weapons, but would include virtually every other kind of armament in the military today. The Second Amendment would not, however, guarantee the right to keep and bear hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns, or other weapons of dubious military utility, unless those were the only weapons available (and our society is wealthy enough they would not be).

Why don't we use such a system today? Because it was used for its extreme purpose, the defense of the states against the federal government, in the years from 1861 to 1865. The consequences were so appalling that the nation quietly turned away from the idea of a militia. (Stonewall is correct that Theodore Roosevelt proposed the National Guard as a substitute; constitutionally, he was of course completely wrong, but the solution works as a practical matter.)

It would have been better IMO to simply repeal the Second Amendment, rather than burying it as we have done. But most Americans regard the Bill of Rights as sacrosanct and not to be tampered with.

Stonewall:

However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

Well, as Ms. Levin has stated in some detail, medically life (unlike the status of being a human being) is pretty easily defined, and so it can be determined that not only is an embryo alive at the moment of conception, but so is the ovum and sperm of which it is composed, prior to conception. And so are the organs which produce those cells, and the embryo which developed those organs, and the sperm and ova which mated to produce that embryo, and so on. Life is a continuum; the only meaningful "beginning" of life lies in the primordial origin in the primal soup.

It is quite impossible, of course, to protect the right to life of every sperm and ovum, or of every living human cell. That makes the "beginning of life" standard not a useful one. What we need to determine, instead, is when the (unquestionably living and human) embryo becomes a human being. Unlike life, that term can't be medically defined. Once we do define it, however, it can be medically determined.

The Establishment Clause merely prohibited establishment of a state religion on the part of the federal government.

Well, not quite. The actual language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That is rather more vague and encompassing than the more straightforward "Congress shall not establish a state religion." It is held nowadays that an act of Congress, or of any branch of the government, which gives preference to any specific religion over others, or to religion in general over non-religion, "respects" an establishment of religion (although granted, it does not fully establish one). I'm not sure what reasoning exempts prayer in Congress, but one could argue that this is for the benefit of Congress itself, and not anything the public is required to participate in.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal. Were Roe v Wade overturned, some states might decide to legalize abortion, but there is no certainty of this.

Personally I can't see why any pragmatic conservative would want to see Roe v Wade overturned. As a national liberal I am all in favor of overturning Roe v Wade.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal. Were Roe v Wade overturned, some states might decide to legalize abortion, but there is no certainty of this.

Personally I can't see why any pragmatic conservative would want to see Roe v Wade overturned. As a national liberal I am all in favor of overturning Roe v Wade.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal. Were Roe v Wade overturned, some states might decide to legalize abortion, but there is no certainty of this.

Personally I can't see why any pragmatic conservative would want to see Roe v Wade overturned. As a national liberal I am all in favor of overturning Roe v Wade.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal. Were Roe v Wade overturned, some states might decide to legalize abortion, but there is no certainty of this.

i'll take "whatchoo talkin' 'bout, willis?" for 300, please, alex.


TK

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal. Were Roe v Wade overturned, some states might decide to legalize abortion, but there is no certainty of this.

i'll take "whatchoo talkin' 'bout, willis?" for 300, please, alex.


TK

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Um, my understanding is abortion is already illegal is 49 of the 50 states. Only in New York is it legal. Were Roe v Wade overturned, some states might decide to legalize abortion, but there is no certainty of this.

i'll take "whatchoo talkin' 'bout, willis?" for 300, please, alex.


TK

Yeah, Mike, I believe you are quite mistaken.

Yeah, Mike, I believe you are quite mistaken.

Yeah, Mike, I believe you are quite mistaken.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".

That's more or less what my Boomer peers said as well Chris, in 1972 and '73. Our Silent teachers didn't actually pass out condoms, but my classmates and I were certainly treated to a healthy dose of tittilating literature and soft-porn "educational" flicks. The lesson learned by many of us was that adults not only thought sexual promiscuity was OK, but that was actually expected of us. Pregnancy was discussed as something easily preventable by using "protection", and besides, if it were to happen so what? -- you could always get an abortion, right? And STDs-- mostly curable at the time and collectively known as "VD" -- were casually dismissed as "just a part of growing up", like chickenpox or the mumps.

So as a result, we have two entire generations (Boomers and Xers) who came of age having nothing special and intimate to offer their future soulmates that they hadn't already squandered, having slept hundreds of times with dozens of people before even graduating from college. And another generation -- the Millennials-- that is far, far from being out of those mean woods yet.

How sad.