LawTalkers - Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

Originally posted by dtb
They were infants at one point. Do you see a lot of people adopting kids from Africa?

From Asia, from Eastern Europe, from South America, yes. Not Africa, however. How curious.

Undoubtedly true, but I would bet they entered foster care at an older age.

I'm not sure why people don't adopt from Africa. Asia/South Amercia seems to rule out racism. Perhaps the adoption process is more arduous there.

Say_hello_for_me

10-12-2004 06:51 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
If you think that one serious anti-abortionist will stop for one second at the Court allowing the individual states to make abortion decisions, you are seriously, seriously naive. True anti-abortionists don't give a shit about federalism. They're preventing murders. To them, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is not the repeal of the declaration that laws banning abortion are illegal, but rather the affirmative declaration that abortion is illegal. Anything less is failure; anything else leaves blood on the hands of the Court.

Puhleeze, I am a serious anti-abortionist. Are you talking about the rabid 1% who protest or more? I mean, if I don't worry about what the vegans care about as representative of the beliefs of your side of the aisle, do you really have to cast the rabid ones as representative of mine?

The fact is, this gets solved by the framework that already exists legitimately in the constitution. This is coming. Ask George Bush if he cares if California moves to legislate legalized abortion. Ask Dick Cheney. Ask just about any-freaking body who has a say in this stuff. You are pointing to the fringe as representative, and then suggesting that its naive not to worry about them. I'm sorry, but its naive to be overly concerned about them. Just politely suggest that they move to Virginia when the time comes.

sgtclub

10-12-2004 06:52 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The Sox, like Kerry, are doomed.

I invented this.

Hank Chinaski

10-12-2004 06:52 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
2. Similarly, it's illegal to sexually exploit children overseas. So much for that Thai vacation . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TRAVEL/10/12....ap/index.html

before you give up the ticket, check and make sure there's not a de minimis exception.

Shape Shifter

10-12-2004 06:53 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Thanks. It scares me to think that, in a hundred years, our current take on abortion is going to be equated, morally, with the pro-slavery position.

When you say "our current take," I assume you mean your "pro-life" position. If so, I agree.

bilmore

10-12-2004 06:53 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Puhleeze, I am a serious anti-abortionist. Are you talking about the rabid 1% who protest or more? I mean, if I don't worry about what the vegans care about as representative of the beliefs of your side of the aisle, do you really have to cast the rabid ones as representative of mine?

The fact is, this gets solved by the framework that already exists legitimately in the constitution. This is coming. Ask George Bush if he cares if California moves to legislate legalized abortion. Ask Dick Cheney. Ask just about any-freaking body who has a say in this stuff. You are pointing to the fringe as representative, and then suggesting that its naive not to worry about them. I'm sorry, but its naive to be overly concerned about them. Just politely suggest that they move to Virginia when the time comes.

No, I think he's right. If you think it's murder, do you simply say "oh, that's over the border, sorry"?

If you truly see it as murder, it does become an uncompromisable issue.

Tyrone Slothrop

10-12-2004 06:54 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It doesn't lead me anywhere, other than that I cannot buy into abortion rights on the basis of the burden on the mother (exceptions for rape, incest, etc.)

If you really think that women who decide to have (non-incestous) sex forfeit any interest in autonomy over their own bodies, etc., then surely you also think that anyone who decides to build on real property forfeits any interest in not having the government regulate the property. Both propositions are stupid, but equally so.

And stop pretending you're a libertarian. It's insulting to real libertarians.

Shape Shifter

10-12-2004 06:56 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It doesn't lead me anywhere, other than that I cannot buy into abortion rights on the basis of the burden on the mother (exceptions for rape, incest, etc.)

Oh, fun. If you believe the fetus is a full human with full human rights (as opposed to property rights, to answer burger's question), what difference does it make to the fetus how it came to be conceived? Is it not still fully human?

Not Me

10-12-2004 06:56 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Not the topic at hand, but what about the "rights" of the putative father? Does he get a vote?

He voted with his dick.

bilmore

10-12-2004 06:56 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you really think that women who decide to have (non-incestous) sex forfeit any interest in autonomy over their own bodies, . . .

Any interest?

Methinks thou doth hyperbolizeth.

Gattigap

10-12-2004 06:57 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

[doooooomed]

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I invented this.

Club, outed!

http://rubberstampstore.com/stamps/pid_221.gif

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

10-12-2004 06:57 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It doesn't lead me anywhere, other than that I cannot buy into abortion rights on the basis of the burden on the mother (exceptions for rape, incest, etc.)

On what other basis could you buy into it? Or can't you?

sgtclub

10-12-2004 06:58 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you really think that women who decide to have (non-incestous) sex forfeit any interest in autonomy over their own bodies, etc., then surely you also think that anyone who decides to build on real property forfeits any interest in not having the government regulate the property. Both propositions are stupid, but equally so.

And stop pretending you're a libertarian. It's insulting to real libertarians.

Ty, Ty, Ty. Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say they forfeit the right. Do you not see a difference between a woman who used birth control and still got pregnant v. one that threw caution to the wind?

How am I pretending? I haven't taken a position on the issue.

bilmore

10-12-2004 06:59 PM

I'm Pleased

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
On what other basis could you buy into it? Or can't you?

Me, I could do it if the actual life of the mother were threatened. Because then we'd be balancing two facially equal competing interests, and only one can win.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 PM.

Page 165 of 334

165

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page