WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-11-14 20:41:59 +0000

Actually I've never thought R v W was that safe. This whole thing about calling a fetus a "human" in murder trials, is a back door attempt to reverse Roe v Wade. Just wait till a fetus is aborted and someone in Oklahoma brings it to the supreme court on murder charges. I've been waitng for this to happen for a couple years now...

Posted by Rory_Stark on 2004-11-14 21:30:03 +0000

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-15 14:59:29 +0000

I pretty much agree with the sentiment in the following article. This country supports abortion rights. A solid 60% of the public believes abortion is a choice to be made between a woman and her doctor. The court is split 6-3, supporting Roe vs. against. One of the three is Reinquist, he'll be replaced shortly, one would guess. Supposing the new justice is pro-birth, that 6-3 holds. Now it's 2 of 6 that might be replaced (O'Connor? Stevens?) they may try to hold on 'till 2008... or at least 2006 when it's likely that Dems will make gains in Congress. (They could all get hit by cars, too, I suppose.) Even if two pro-Roe justices are replaced with anti-Roe justices (not likely considering Specter liekly to be the chairman vetting nominations and the Dems _will_ filibuster an openly pro-birth candidate) this new 4-5 anti-Roe majority can't outlaw abortion across the country. If Roe gets overturned, abortion becomes a State issue again. Too bad if you're a teenaged rape victim in Oklahoma, but the Immoral Minority here in the Northeast could presumably keep on killing babies. Caveat: "Elective" abortions in the third trimester may come under more regulation, I guess. E.g., the partial-birth procedure thing. That law is currently under review for being too vague, anyway. What happens if Roe is overturned?

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-16 05:43:01 +0000

Yes they can't outlaw it by overturning Row, but, correct me if I am wrong, -if someone brought a suit such as Dawn describes -the state held that is was murder -and it was appealed to the supreme court - and they held that it was murder would that not set the reverse prescident- and thus make it legal to prosecute someone for murder in all states?

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-16 05:45:52 +0000

And as far as 60% of the country being pro choice, I believe that polls show something like 56% of the country think that Bush is doing a bad job, and he just got reelected.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-16 07:20:12 +0000

...b/c 51% of the country realized Kerry sucked. Don't get me wrong: Bush is incompetent. However, HOW DO YOU LOSE TO THIS NITWIT?

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-16 07:30:07 +0000

This is were you bump into the third trimester stuff. Under the law, the fetus is considered a life when it's viable outside the womb. The legal system does not recognize life at conception. Until I'm otherwise shown false, filing a lawsuit (that whole litigious society that the Right likes to carp about) concerning a fetus before the 6 or 7 month is fruitless (pardon the pun...). Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder b/c his wife was pregnant. Anyone know how far along L. Peterson was?

Posted by uncle on 2004-11-17 08:41:47 +0000

Keep in mind that Kerry did not just loose to Bush, he really lost to Rove. Actually, I think more aptly put, I think he lost due to a long running failure on the democrats part to define what the party stands for. Its funny to think, I have been arguing against Kerry's message being unclear, because I think for the most part it was clear. Where I think I fall pretty close to RD and BQ and other pubs (chime in if you agree), is that I think the Dems in general have not defined the party in a way that most people can relate with over the last 20 years. Considering that Daschle lost after having been the dem leader in congress for a decade, and he had 16 mil to win over the majority of 500,000 people, I think the problem is with how the party has handled itself. Pubs have spent the last 2 decades really solidifying themselves. They have essentialy branded family values and created a monopoly on patriotism. All the dems have managed to do in terms of defining themselves, is to be the opposite of the pubs. People regard the pubs as 'moral' because the pubs keep saying they are- and then they come up with reason. I think the reasons are flawed, but that is not the point. The dems never really speak their morality for fear of allienating someone. Instead they just cast themselves as the opposite of the pubs. Therefore, if the masses buy that the pubs are moral, then the dems are making themselves out to be immoral, and arrogantly so. I think that no matter how good your intentions, or your politics, or your governance, the masses won't buy it without a kind credibility that is rooted in a gut feeling with regards to what your party is 'about'- if you get what I am saying.

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-17 14:57:26 +0000

No argument here...

Posted by tgl on 2004-11-17 15:43:30 +0000

My favorite Benedictine Sister echoes some of the points made by the good uncle.