From the Supreme Court...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Justices Begin Work on a Polarizing New Docket
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: October 1, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — The Supreme Court has so many polarizing cases on the docket for its new term that the deep ideological divisions that characterized the last term are all but certain to remain on display after justices reconvene on Monday.

The conservative majority under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. drove the court to the right in a series of high-profile rulings during the term that ended in June. That performance, as well as a series of books and articles by and about justices, has placed the court in an unusually bright spotlight as the new term opens.

The conservative bloc will not necessarily prevail in every important case. For example, the Bush administration is clearly on the defensive as the court prepares to hear a third-round challenge to policies governing those held as enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But the conservative justices clearly have the upper hand in the all-important task of shaping the court’s docket, a process that in effect shapes the country’s immediate legal agenda. They demonstrated their power last week in accepting 19 new cases, an unusually large number, including an employer’s appeal in a racial discrimination case that could provide a vehicle for limiting remedies available under one of the country’s oldest civil rights laws.

At issue in the latest Guantánamo case is whether Congress properly stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges brought by detainees. The justices had seemed willing to steer clear of the issue in April, when they declined to hear appeals from two groups of detainees.

But the day after the term ended, they reversed course and agreed to hear the cases, an action without modern precedent. Because the reconsideration required the votes of five justices, instead of the four ordinarily needed to grant a case, the development strongly suggested that a majority of the court retains concerns about the current regime for determining and challenging the detainees’ designation as enemy combatants. The Bush administration lost two earlier rounds at the court, in 2004 and 2006.

Among the new cases the justices granted last week was a challenge to a state law requiring voters to provide photo identification in order to cast a ballot, an issue that has divided legislators and judges along party lines throughout the country. Republicans generally stress the importance of preventing voter fraud, while Democrats view these increasingly popular measures as creating unwarranted barriers to voter access. Although the justices granted the case at the request of the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union, the action could well prove to be an example of “watch out what you wish for” if the result is to uphold the statute at issue and to encourage other states to follow Indiana’s lead.

The justices also took up a highly visible death penalty case, a challenge to the particular lethal injection method that is used in most states. While the validity of capital punishment, or even of lethal injection, is not at stake, the case will require the justices to take a position on the current meaning of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. It is far from clear whether a majority of the justices will read the Constitution as mandating one chemical formulation versus another.

The discrimination case the justices granted on Tuesday, which has attracted almost no notice, could nonetheless produce an important shift in the court’s approach to interpreting statutes. The question is whether a law that bars racial discrimination in business dealings, including employment, also prohibits retaliation against those who complain about discrimination.

Ordinarily, the court grants cases only to resolve conflicting interpretations in the lower courts. But in this instance, every federal appeals court to consider the issue has agreed that the statute does apply to retaliation. For the court to grant a case in the absence of a lower-court conflict — as it did in the case decided in June that invalidated voluntary integration plans in two public school systems — is often an indication that the case has been added to the docket as a vehicle for advancing a particular agenda.

The federal law at issue in the new case was originally part of the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Act of 1866. Known now as Section 1981, it does not mention “retaliation.” Neither do most other anti-discrimination laws. In the past, that has been no barrier to the court in finding that protection against retaliation is inherently part of protection against discrimination.

But support on the court for an approach that goes beyond the margins of the constitutional text has been shrinking. Two years ago, the court ruled 5 to 4 that Title IX, a law that bars sex discrimination in schools, also covers retaliation. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion. It is likely that her successor, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., would have been among the dissenters.

Given that the new case, CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431, does not meet the court’s most important criterion for review, it is likely that a new majority granted it in order to cut off the retaliation claim and perhaps also to issue a broader ruling against finding rights that are not spelled out in statutes.

Here are details of other important cases for the new term.

Detainees

A year ago, in response to the court’s most recent ruling in favor of a Guantánamo detainee, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, providing that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction” to consider a detainee’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who was then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, voted for the measure, but has filed a brief telling the justices he believes it is unconstitutional.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to suspend the “privilege” of habeas corpus only at times of “rebellion or invasion.” Under Supreme Court precedents, a suspension at other times may nonetheless be permissible as long as adequate alternate procedures exist for challenging a conviction or sentence. So the question in these cases, Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06-1195, and Al Odah v. United States, No. 06-1196, is whether the justices will deem the limited procedures available to the detainees to be adequate.

Voting Rights

Challengers to Indiana’s two-year-old voter identification law, which requires current government-issued photo ID, call it the “most onerous” such law in the country. Voters lacking the proper identification have 10 days to obtain it in order for their provisional ballots to be counted.

A federal appeals court upheld the law, finding that it would prevent fraud while not keeping many people from the polls. The plaintiffs maintain that the poor and elderly would face a disproportionate burden.

The underlying question is how the justices will evaluate the competing interests of preventing fraud and protecting access. The cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 07-25.

Criminal Law

The lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, challenges the use of the most common three-drug lethal injection “cocktail,” which is conceded to place some inmates at risk of severe pain. The Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that the risk was not substantial enough to make the particular combination unconstitutional.

The question for the justices is what standard courts should use in evaluating the evidence from which to draw a conclusion on constitutionality, especially in light of evidence that pain can be avoided through a different combination of drugs and attention to a reliable level of anesthesia.

The court will also hear two more cases that address the question of judicial discretion in federal criminal sentencing.

The question in Gall v. United States, No. 06-7949, is the justification a judge must provide in issuing a sentence that differs substantially from the one called for by the federal sentencing guidelines. Kimbrough v. United States, No. 06-6330, addresses judicial discretion to mitigate the sentences required for offenses involving crack cocaine.

Federalism

The Texas courts have refused to accept a directive from President Bush to bypass procedural obstacles and grant a new hearing to a Mexican death-row inmate, after a 2004 World Court decision that the inmate’s rights under an international treaty were violated when he was not given the chance to meet with Mexican officials. The case, Medellín v. Texas, No. 06-984, presents unusual issues of state-federal relations.

.

[Jennifer]

I fail to see how the poor or elderly would have an unusually hard burden to get a free government ID with photo to use at the polls.

Oh, you didn't know that you can file for a free passport if you can prove you cannot afford the fee? Wow. Didn't do your homework....again.


As for lethal injection, I am against the government allowing or participating in the act of taking any life of a US Citizen. All Americans are precious, even our criminals. Besides, it's much more of a punishment to ostracize a mass murderer for his or her entire life then to give him or her the easy out of death.

Make abortion illegal and give rights to the unborn citizens and make the death penalty illegal. In both cases it's not a choice, it's a human life!

[UserName]

I fail to see how the poor or elderly would have an unusually hard burden to get a free government ID with photo to use at the polls.

Oh, you didn't know that you can file for a free passport if you can prove you cannot afford the fee? Wow. Didn't do your homework....again.


As for lethal injection, I am against the government allowing or participating in the act of taking any life of a US Citizen. All Americans are precious, even our criminals. Besides, it's much more of a punishment to ostracize a mass murderer for his or her entire life then to give him or her the easy out of death.

Make abortion illegal and give rights to the unborn citizens and make the death penalty illegal. In both cases it's not a choice, it's a human life!

You had me until that last paragraph. You seem to want to give rights to a zygote and take them away from an actual human being. I have never been quite able to figure out how a potential human being has more rights than an actual human being. :confused:

[Jennifer]

Whom do I want to take rights away from?

I want to give rights to an unborn homo sapain because the unborn homosapian committed no crime and has no ability to defend him or herself from the violent actions of those who would murder him or her.

Perhaps you are referring to the alleged removal of rights from the mother of the homosapian. Well, in that case, I am for the removal of rights from murderers, rapists and thieves too because I want to prohibit them from harming human lives too.

[Linkster]

I have to ask Jennifer - what criminal penalties would you suggest for mothers that choose abortion - even if it were due to rape or anything else. In my opinion they should be charged with criminal murder charges and get the death penalty but I just wanted to see what your opinion is

[UserName]

Whom do I want to take rights away from?

I want to give rights to an unborn homo sapain because the unborn homosapian committed no crime and has no ability to defend him or herself from the violent actions of those who would murder him or her.

Perhaps you are referring to the alleged removal of rights from the mother of the homosapian. Well, in that case, I am for the removal of rights from murderers, rapists and thieves too because I want to prohibit them from harming human lives too.

I don't like murderers either. But can you show me a law that states the termination of a zygote is "murder" or were you just speculating? And don't tell me that you support legislation that would make women mere "breeders" for the State.

[Jennifer]

I don't like murderers either. But can you show me a law that states the termination of a zygote is "murder" or were you just speculating? And don't tell me that you support legislation that would make women mere "breeders" for the State.


If a person murders an expectant mother and it results in the death of the baby, the person is charged with double homicide. Thus, the state has made a precedent that it is, actually a living homosapian.

As for the "punishment" for abortion, I think it should be equal to the punishment for any pre-meditated murder. What's the going rate now adays? 30 years I think. Not sure on that. But it seems right, at least I think that's what the mobsters got in Chicago recently.

Anyway, you are killing a life that has the expectation of 80+ years of life and all the choices of a new born.

Perhaps that child is the next Mozart or Galileo or Bill Clinton?


After all, you made your choice when you had sex. Now it's nature's turn to make a choice on if you keep the baby or not.


Obviously, I'll give you the very rare exceptions where the continuation of the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. If my life were in danger if I carried another baby to term, I would abort it too. I can always get pregnant again, takes a lot longer for the baby to get pregnant or get someone pregnant.


We can relate this to ethics:

Ethics is the greatest good for the greatest number.

So it is ethical to save the lives of both mother and child rather then save the convenience of the mother at the expense of the child's life. In the first case you are doing the greatest good for two people. In the latter you are only doing the greatest good for one person.

[UserName]

If a person murders an expectant mother and it results in the death of the baby, the person is charged with double homicide. Thus, the state has made a precedent that it is, actually a living homosapian.
That statute only applies when the mother is killed or miscarries because of violence. It has nothing to do with legal abortion or womens rights. Nice try though.

As for the "punishment" for abortion, I think it should be equal to the punishment for any pre-meditated murder. What's the going rate now adays? 30 years I think. Not sure on that. But it seems right, at least I think that's what the mobsters got in Chicago recently.
Another person who believes that life begins at conception and ends at birth where the state owns your life.

Anyway, you are killing a life that has the expectation of 80+ years of life and all the choices of a new born.
Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.

Religious communities have differing ideas on the definition of "person" or when abortion is morally justified. In the US courts, however, a fetus has consistently been found not to be a person with legal rights.

Perhaps that child is the next Mozart or Galileo or Bill Clinton?
Or Hitler, Pol Pot, or George Bush.


After all, you made your choice when you had sex. Now it's nature's turn to make a choice on if you keep the baby or not.
Really? What planet do you live on. While most pregnancies are unplanned here on earth, I can see why you would take the stance you have because you are clearly not from here. Motherhood should never be a punishment for having sex.


Obviously, I'll give you the very rare exceptions where the continuation of the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. If my life were in danger if I carried another baby to term, I would abort it too. I can always get pregnant again, takes a lot longer for the baby to get pregnant or get someone pregnant.

I hate abortion and would love to see the day when there are no more. But legislation is not the answer. Education, and support would be better ways to end this practice.

[Jennifer]

UserName,

I have to admit, you are very adept at twisting statements and facts of those with differing ideologies, but all the twists in the world will not make you correct.


Unborn children are homosapians. Of this no argument has ever been lost. They have human DNA, they are living organizims and they have the potential of a full life. No scientist has ever been able to prove otherwise. Furthermore, their DNA is fully distinct from their mother's, unlike cancer or an organ and thus it is not part of their bodies, but a body in and of itself. Fully formed is not a question here. People born without limbs are not fully formed, yet murdering them is still a crime.

Likewise, your attempt to shrug off the statute that murdering an unborn child against the will of the mother is punishable under the murder statutes is erronious. It does prove that the child is a human being because you cannot murder a cancerous growth or an organ.


As for your allocation that I think the state owns your life, I fail to see where you come up with that and thus, must conclude you have included this as a way to slander my character in an attempt to impinge upon the argument made and try to convince others that you must be right because your opponent is this evil person who wants the state to control your life.

In fact, I am for the protection of life. All life. I neither want people put to death by the state nor do I want people to be permitted to murder other people, especially the innocent who have no way to speak up and defend themselves.

And if you want to sanction the murder of people because it's inconvenient to have them around - the justification for most abortions - then why don't we allow people to kill their parents when they become old and feeble? They can no longer care for themselves. They start to lose their memory, their sanity, their eye sight, their joints break down, they are expensive to care for and hard to maintain. If it's okay to murder an innocent baby because the mother fell prey to her own lust without thinking of the consequences, then why not murder an 80 year old who lives in a nursing home and drains social security?

[TheCenturion]

I fail to see how the poor or elderly would have an unusually hard burden to get a free government ID with photo to use at the polls.

Oh, you didn't know that you can file for a free passport if you can prove you cannot afford the fee? Wow. Didn't do your homework....again.


As for lethal injection, I am against the government allowing or participating in the act of taking any life of a US Citizen. All Americans are precious, even our criminals. Besides, it's much more of a punishment to ostracize a mass murderer for his or her entire life then to give him or her the easy out of death.

Make abortion illegal and give rights to the unborn citizens and make the death penalty illegal. In both cases it's not a choice, it's a human life!

Respect for government and law requires consistency and equal protection.

You can't claim to be "pro-life" and revere the life of an unborn fetus and be willing to administer executions...especially given the many flaws and errors that occur throughout the criminal justice system, not withstanding, the "human error" factor. Sure, some people deserve to be executed. But it's not about them. It's about us.

This also includes an immoral inclination to promote and start "preemptive" wars based on lies.

[Jennifer]

I have never advocated the murder of criminals by the state. You put that in my mouth.

Go back and read what I said. I don't advocate the murder of unborn babies or criminals.

Make abortion illegal and give rights to the unborn citizens and make the death penalty illegal.

[Bill]

Respect for government and law requires consistency and equal protection.

You can't claim to be "pro-life" and revere the life of an unborn fetus and be willing to administer executions...especially given the many flaws and errors that occur throughout the criminal justice system, not withstanding, the "human error" factor. Sure, some people deserve to be executed. But it's not about them. It's about us.

This also includes an immoral inclination to promote and start "preemptive" wars based on lies.

Centurion, as much as I agree with your argument above, I do still require a public apology from you to radioguy to resolve the matter brought up in the other thread.

You have the right to leave of your own free will.

But if you post again, without apologizing, you will be banned.

It's natural to want to test limits. This is the limit.

[Linkster]

So Jennifer - I take it you wouldnt support Giuliani :thumbsup:

[UserName]

I have never advocated the murder of criminals by the state. You put that in my mouth.

Go back and read what I said. I don't advocate the murder of unborn babies or criminals.

But you obviously advocate making women breeders for the state. Abortion often has positive benefits for women's lives and health. So you don't want women to have anything positive happen to them once they become pregnant and you advocate imposing your values by civil law on everyone?

[TheCenturion]

I have never advocated the murder of criminals by the state. You put that in my mouth.

Go back and read what I said. I don't advocate the murder of unborn babies or criminals.


Huhh?.. Why are you so defensive and confrontational? I was simply agreeing with you. Is being hostile something you reserve for those you perceive as "librul" whether they agree with you or not?

[TheCenturion]

Centurion, as much as I agree with your argument above, I do still require a public apology from you to radioguy to resolve the matter brought up in the other thread.

You have the right to leave of your own free will.

But if you post again, without apologizing, you will be banned.

It's natural to want to test limits. This is the limit.

Screw you, Bill. I apologized to the community which included everybody. His apology was BS - as would be obvious to Stevie Wonder. This is not a kindergarten and I'm not going to engage in a gratuitous little kiss and make up session with a notorious fascist whacko, stalker and Zionist Racist Supremacist just to stroke your inflated sense of self importance. If he were a gentleman, I might consider it. But, clearly, that's off the table by definition. And it's pretty damn sad that you can't see it and don't get it. No worries. It's nothing to me.

[Bill]

Ahhh, so you're gaming me by arguing equivalence.

But you may have a point in arguing that his apology could be seen as general also, in that he named three names.

But, by that principle, your apology should have included his name.

I can't persuade you to make an apology that includes his name?

That would fulfill equivalence.

[TheCenturion]

Ahhh, so you're gaming me by arguing equivalence.

But you may have a point in arguing that his apology could be seen as general also, in that he named three names.

But, by that principle, your apology should have included his name.

I can't persuade you to make an apology that includes his name?

That would fulfill equivalence.

Provide me a list of all the users here and I'll consider that.

In the meantime, gimme a friggin break, Bill. His so called "apology" was just an exercise in sophistry and equivocation. In fact, he simply used it as yet another opportunity to engage in name calling and self revelatory posturing. It was pure BS and didn't contain a scintilla of authentic contrition. If you want to get me the list, please include the number of your dealer. Thanks.

[Bill]

His so called "apology" was just an exercise in sophistry and equivocation.

All I asked of you was an equivalent exercise of sophistry and equivocation.

I listened to your argument of equivalence, offered as solution. I've fullfilled my requirements.

[Jennifer]

But you obviously advocate making women breeders for the state. Abortion often has positive benefits for women's lives and health. So you don't want women to have anything positive happen to them once they become pregnant and you advocate imposing your values by civil law on everyone?


You may have the very rare case when the abortion is to save the mother's life. I have conceded that many times. Just give me all the cases when the abortion is to make the mother's life more convenient. This, btw, is not making women breeders, it's making women responsible for their actions.

Should a woman poison a man resulting in his death, would you not incarcerate her because she shouldn't be forced into incarceration just for merely killing a grown bag of protein strands, saline solution and carbon strings!


Centurion: Huhh?.. Why are you so defensive and confrontational? I was simply agreeing with you. Is being hostile something you reserve for those you perceive as "librul" whether they agree with you or not?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer
I fail to see how the poor or elderly would have an unusually hard burden to get a free government ID with photo to use at the polls.

Oh, you didn't know that you can file for a free passport if you can prove you cannot afford the fee? Wow. Didn't do your homework....again.


As for lethal injection, I am against the government allowing or participating in the act of taking any life of a US Citizen. All Americans are precious, even our criminals. Besides, it's much more of a punishment to ostracize a mass murderer for his or her entire life then to give him or her the easy out of death.

Make abortion illegal and give rights to the unborn citizens and make the death penalty illegal. In both cases it's not a choice, it's a human life!

Centurion

Respect for government and law requires consistency and equal protection.

You can't claim to be "pro-life" and revere the life of an unborn fetus and be willing to administer executions...especially given the many flaws and errors that occur throughout the criminal justice system, not withstanding, the "human error" factor. Sure, some people deserve to be executed. But it's not about them. It's about us.

This also includes an immoral inclination to promote and start "preemptive" wars based on lies.

So how is this saying you agree with me? It seems more that you are attempting to claim I am for murdering incarcerated adults but not murdering unborn children which is categorically untrue. I am against the murder of anyone not actively engaged in trying to do me, my family, my friends or my country harm and only harming them enough to make them STOP trying to do me, my family, my friends or my country harm.

[Little Red Dog]

Just curious... What do you suggest doing with all the unwanted babies born to mothers who are unwilling or unable to provide a stable, loving home for them?

[UserName]

You may have the very rare case when the abortion is to save the mother's life. I have conceded that many times. Just give me all the cases when the abortion is to make the mother's life more convenient.
Legal abortion helps parents limit their families to the number of children they want and can afford. This strengthens and stabilizes the family unit. Therefore, pro-choice is pro-child and pro-family. Anti-abortion laws can cause stress and hardship for families with insufficient resources to raise unwanted children. Families with unwanted children often consist of a child and her child, living at the lowest levels of society. You, Jennifer, and people like you, are the greatest hurdle to pro-child and pro-family in America today. Your archaic beliefs are suited more for the 2000 year old mindset of the Catholic Church and not a modern civilized society where womens rights matter to all of us.


This, btw, is not making women breeders, it's making women responsible for their actions.
Are you even remotely suggesting that women terminate their pregnancies because they are "irresponsible"? About 78% of Americans believe that abortion is a private matter between a woman and her doctor. Human rights are guaranteed for everyone and are not subject to the whim of the electorate.

Should a woman poison a man resulting in his death, would you not incarcerate her because she shouldn't be forced into incarceration just for merely killing a grown bag of protein strands, saline solution and carbon strings!

There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Human life is a continuum---sperm and eggs are also alive, and represent potential human beings, but virtually all sperm and eggs are wasted. Should you be forced into incarceration every time you waste an egg?


So how is this saying you agree with me? It seems more that you are attempting to claim I am for murdering incarcerated adults but not murdering unborn children which is categorically untrue. I am against the murder of anyone not actively engaged in trying to do me, my family, my friends or my country harm and only harming them enough to make them STOP trying to do me, my family, my friends or my country harm.

If fetal rights were enshrined in law, women's bodies, rights, and health would be subordinated to the protection of embryos. The legal consequences of such a law would be catastrophic. The best way to protect the fetus is to promote the health and well-being of women.
Laws have never stopped abortion, but only made it unsafe for women. Abortion is a universal practice that has been with us since the beginning of time, whether legal or illegal. Your plan for womens health would be nothing more than a bottle of Midol and a coat hanger.

[Jennifer]

What is life?

Scientifically life needs to meet the following requirements:

1) Living things need to take in energy (zygotes ingest calories from the host body)
2) Living things get rid of waste (zygotes expel waste through the host body)
3) Living things grow and develop (zygotes develop into full grown adults if left alone)
4) Living things respond to their environment (zygotes respond to their environment, sometimes this response is death.)
5) Living things reproduce and pass their traits onto their offspring (allowed to develop, they will reproduce. Unless you want to claim babies and children are not alive)
6) Over time, living things evolve (change slowly) in response to their environment (homosapians do this.)


Thus, unborn children are alive.


What do we do with the unwanted babies? Well, for one, there is a HUGE demand for babies in this country. Why not put them up for adoption?

It's not a matter of limiting their number of children. Most abortions are performed on women ages 14-24. Why do they need the abortion? Because putting a condom on a guy takes too long. Because getting on the pill requires parental permission if under 18. Thus, it is a matter of convenience, not a matter of need.


And yes, I am saying they are terminating because they are immature, lazy, snot nosed little brats who don't want to be inconvenienced. It's easy to murder someone who can't speak up for themselves.


As for sperm and eggs, they don't meet the requirements to be human DNA. They are only half the code needed to be DNA. However, once they combine, they become a unique DNA strand of a unique individual.

Or should we say that 65 year olds arn't really human. They are not self-sufficient. Most of their lives are "wasted" from that point on. They cannot procure the materials needed to sustain their lives without help.


No, of course not. Because the elderly can speak up for themselves! You have turned unborn children into lower life forms then slaves. Even beasts have more rights then these humans and citizens!


If embryonic rights were codified, then women would have to be more careful. That might mean a reduction in premarital sex coupled with a reduced spread of sexually transmitted diseases and, at the very least, more responsibility. After all, if you don't have unprotected sex, it is very difficult for you to get pregnant. If you do get pregnant, there are hundreds of organizations and thousands of families willing to pay for your medical treatment during your pregnancy and then you give the baby to them for adoption.

This would result in the LEAST impact on human rights! "...the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Notice that LIFE was first. Life, not CONVENIENCE.

Now, as I've said, if it comes to a choice of saving the baby or the mother, I vote for the mother. Now you have to chose LIFE for one or the other. But abortion is choosing LIFE and HAPPINESS for one at the expense of LIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS for the other.

[Linkster]

Up to 20 weeks the growth is not "alive" in human terms - and does not have a cognitive brain - therefore - not human

Of course I dont think men should even be in the discussion since its not their bodies

[LadyMod at scam.com]

Up to 20 weeks the growth is not "alive" in human terms - and does not have a cognitive brain - therefore - not human

Of course I dont think men should even be in the discussion since its not their bodies

And sometimes that is the advantage. Less emotionally involved in the process.

That being said, most women, after carrying a child for 9 months can rarely part with them at birth. Apparently yon Chicklet above has never been pregnant much less given a child away that she has birthed.


Lady Mod

[Little Red Dog]

What do we do with the unwanted babies? Well, for one, there is a HUGE demand for babies in this country. Why not put them up for adoption?

Before you so glibly suggest "adoption" as the solution, here are a few facts on adoption:

The most recent complete data on children in foster care, summarized below, was released in January, 2000 by the Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Using data collected through the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), the Bureau has compiled a comprehensive picture of children in foster care from October 1,1998 through March 31,1999.
AFCARS is a federally mandated data collection program, using case specific information submitted semi-annually by the States. Many States have not yet submitted complete data for each area.

- Since 1984, the number of children in foster care has increased yearly. At the end of 1995, there were approximately 483,000 children in foster care, a 72 percent increase in the number of children in care in 1986. (VCIS, APHSA, 1995)

- Returning home is not an option for about 100,000 of the children in the foster care system, yet only 20,000 were adopted in 1995. Approximately 7,000 other children were permanently placed in legal guardianship. (US HHS, 1997)

Number of Months Waiting Children Have Been in Continuous Foster Care -
Approximately less than 1% of waiting children resided in continuous foster care for less than a month. 3% resided in foster care 1-5 months, 6% resided 6-11 months, 8% resided 12-17 months, 10% resided 18-23 months, 10% resided 24-29 months, 9% resided 30-35 months, 26% resided 36-59 months, and 27% resided 60 or more months.

- Since 1984, the number of children in foster care has increased yearly. At the end of 1995, there were approximately 483,000 children in foster care, a 72 percent increase in the number of children in care in 1986. (VCIS, APHSA, 1995)

- Returning home is not an option for about 100,000 of the children in the foster care system, yet only 20,000 were adopted in 1995. Approximately 7,000 other children were permanently placed in legal guardianship. (US HHS, 1997)

http://statistics.adoption.com/information/adoption-statistics-foster-care-1999.html

I would also suggest that you find some of these kids who have been bounced from foster home to foster home throughout their lives. Talk to them. See how "huge" they think the demand is for adoption.

The stories will break your heart.

The fact is that this is no way to raise a child. The system is the best we have, but it certainly not good. And thousands of children are growing up with issues related to having been forced to live this way through no fault of their own. It is a shitty way to grow up.

Yet this is the smug "solution" that "pro-life" proponents propose all the time. Furthermore, I have yet to actually meet one of you people (yes, I mean "you people") who have adopted an unwanted child - or intend to.

Don't judge another man (or in this case, woman) until you have walked in her shoes. If you think this is a workable solution FOR AN UNWANTED CHILD - then get busy adopting.

483,000 kids would love to come live with you.

[UserName]

What is life?

Scientifically life needs to meet the following requirements:

1) Living things need to take in energy (zygotes ingest calories from the host body)
2) Living things get rid of waste (zygotes expel waste through the host body)
3) Living things grow and develop (zygotes develop into full grown adults if left alone)
4) Living things respond to their environment (zygotes respond to their environment, sometimes this response is death.)
5) Living things reproduce and pass their traits onto their offspring (allowed to develop, they will reproduce. Unless you want to claim babies and children are not alive)
6) Over time, living things evolve (change slowly) in response to their environment (homosapians do this.)
Thus, unborn children are alive.

As I have said... There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins. It is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief. Personhood at conception is a religious belief, not a provable biological fact.


What do we do with the unwanted babies? Well, for one, there is a HUGE demand for babies in this country. Why not put them up for adoption?
That is a blatant lie as Red Dog so astutely pointed out. There are thousands of children, unwanted children, looking for homes.

It's not a matter of limiting their number of children. Most abortions are performed on women ages 14-24. Why do they need the abortion? Because putting a condom on a guy takes too long. Because getting on the pill requires parental permission if under 18. Thus, it is a matter of convenience, not a matter of need.
And yes, I am saying they are terminating because they are immature, lazy, snot nosed little brats who don't want to be inconvenienced. It's easy to murder someone who can't speak up for themselves.
This vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse.


After all, if you don't have unprotected sex, it is very difficult for you to get pregnant. If you do get pregnant, there are hundreds of organizations and thousands of families willing to pay for your medical treatment during your pregnancy and then you give the baby to them for adoption.
The same people who oppose legal abortion often oppose contraception as well. This position is irresponsible and hypocritical. The Catholic Church and the "religious right" are the backbone of the anti-abortion movement and we are all well aware that religious doctrines that dictate female subservience and a childbearing role for women are the real hidden agenda of opposition to abortion.

Anti-abortionists trivialize motherhood and childbirth by dismissing pregnancy as a mere inconvenience. They ignore or belittle the needs of the woman and the conflict she endures in making her decision. Guilt is inflicted when compassion is needed.

[Jennifer]

Up to 20 weeks the growth is not "alive" in human terms - and does not have a cognitive brain - therefore - not human

Of course I dont think men should even be in the discussion since its not their bodies


Woot! Let's kill off everyone in longterm care in the hospitals and retirement homes! They don't have "cognitive brain function" so they are not human! Oh yea, murder is legal now, baby!


Or you could rationally figure out that Human DNA, unique from the host, that meets or exceeds the biological definition of life is a human life and thus should be given all possible chances of survival and integration into the world.


And yes, the father has rights too. Half that DNA is from them and they participated in the act that created the child.

[Jennifer]

The same people who oppose legal abortion often oppose contraception as well. This position is irresponsible and hypocritical. The Catholic Church and the "religious right" are the backbone of the anti-abortion movement and we are all well aware that religious doctrines that dictate female subservience and a childbearing role for women are the real hidden agenda of opposition to abortion.

Anti-abortionists trivialize motherhood and childbirth by dismissing pregnancy as a mere inconvenience. They ignore or belittle the needs of the woman and the conflict she endures in making her decision. Guilt is inflicted when compassion is needed.

Bunch of lies and deceipt, but let's run with it anyway.

1) The demand for newborn babies is astronomical the world round. Especially white newborns, but others as well. Why do you think our celebrities have to go to foreign nations and purchase babies???

2) I gave birth to two children. I do not trivialize anything. But you are a man, you do not understand the truth.

3) Belittling their needs? What, the need to look non-pregnant? All other needs are gladly filled by would be parents who cannot have their own babies! medical needs, food needs, financial compensation, all provided for.

4) Did I ever say I was against contraception? If the Sperm and Egg do not join, then the DNA is not human. 26 chromosomes, not 13.

5) When have I ever called for female subservience?


Wow, so you put up a bunch of red herrings and I made suchi out of them. Any other BS argument you want to try instead of arguing facts and logic?


Oh yea, and one more thing, if it's so easy to adopt a newborn, then why is surrogate rates sky rocketting? (Other then the fact the women probably had abortions when they were younger and now cannot carry a child to term on their own, a very common side effect of abortions.)

[LadyMod at scam.com]

2) I gave birth to two children. I do not trivialize anything. But you are a man, you do not understand the truth.

But could you have given them away as willingly as you give away another's?


:confused:

[Leeguana]

Bunch of lies and deceipt, but let's run with it anyway.

1) The demand for newborn babies is astronomical the world round. Especially white newborns, but others as well. Why do you think our celebrities have to go to foreign nations and purchase babies???
"There are an estimated 523,000 children in foster care in the United States, and more than 119,000 of them are waiting to be adopted."
http://www.nationaladoptionday.org/2007/adoptInfo/NAS_Factsheet_2006.pdf
Celebrities don't "have to" go to foreign nations to adopt. They choose to do that.

2) I gave birth to two children. I do not trivialize anything. But you are a man, you do not understand the truth.Where does all this hatred toward men stem from?

[Jennifer]

Primarily, from men like you who think you have a clue what it's like to have a life growing inside you that you give birth to and raise. You don't. Don't lecture those of us who do.


You are citing statistics for foster kids who are over the age of 5 all the way up to 18. Yea, they are mostly unwanted. They're already damaged.

Now, get some numbers on the number of unadopted newborns. Betcha they'll be next to zero because newborns are in HUGE demand. Not only in America but everywhere. Because they are blank slates, they have no baggage.

[Leeguana]

Primarily, from men like you who think you have a clue what it's like to have a life growing inside you that you give birth to and raise. You don't. Don't lecture those of us who do.I wasn't lecturing anyone Jennifer. Just curious as to why you say something like "You are a man. You don't understand the truth."

[Leeguana]

You are citing statistics for foster kids who are over the age of 5 all the way up to 18. Yea, they are mostly unwanted. They're already damaged.It's a good thing not everyone views them like you do, as "damaged goods". Otherwise, NONE of them would get adopted.

[Linkster]

Aside from the punishment of the mothers that do have abortions (which if a pro-lifer were to be totally honest would mean that the mother was guilty of first degree murder and subject to Capital punishment since it was pre-meditated) - there is also the fact that all of those (to use jennifers definition of life) stranded dnas that have already combined, that the body naturally trashes at certain points - the ones that dont become babies and sometimes twins trips etc - but all of the rest are thrown away. Shouldnt we be charging pregnant women with murder as well?

[Linkster]

And of course the last point would be that we should probably add in those that miscarry - although they should be only 2nd degree murder since they didnt premeditate it

[moonman]

Whoa, Jennifer got one thing right. The rights of a fetus are directly dependent upon the intent of the mother. That is why there is often a double murder charge when a pregnant woman is 86'd.

Jennifer, that also defeats your argument for making abortion illegal.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

And of course the last point would be that we should probably add in those that miscarry - although they should be only 2nd degree murder since they didnt premeditate it

Thanks for the clarification. I would have only gone to prison twice then.

:lmao2:

[Linkster]

Yep - and lets see how important the lives of these double stranded cells are to the pro-lifers - see if they are willing to put their beliefs to the real test :thumbsup:

[Little Red Dog]

Oh yea, and one more thing, if it's so easy to adopt a newborn, then why is surrogate rates sky rocketting?

Kinda nixes your premise that adoption is the solution to unwanted babies, doesn't it?

Oh... and I love that you refer to thousands of children as "damaged goods". Yet you think forcing more children to be born into circumstances that turn them into "damaged goods" is a good thing. Real progression of logic there. Must be that "compassionate conservative" brain at work.

More than anything else you have ever posted, or are likely to post, that shows me exactly the kind of person you are.

Now we know that you are not just a troll, but a repulsive and despicable one to boot.

[Little Red Dog]

Yep - and lets see how important the lives of these double stranded cells are to the pro-lifers - see if they are willing to put their beliefs to the real test :thumbsup:

The majority of them never do. Ask them how many adopted babies they ahve, and they look at you as if you had asked them when they're going to grow two horns.

They hypocrisy of it sickens me, it really does.

They claim to be all concerned about the lives of the unborn, and they don't give a shit about those same lives when they're born.

In fairness, I have heard of a very few "pro-lifers" who do put their money where their mouth is, and have adopted several "damaged goods". I got no quarrel with these folks. They're living what they believe.

The rest of them, can go f*ck themselves with a ping-pong paddle.