"For the record, I'm pro-choice up to the point of natural viability. However, abortion isn't expressed in the Constitution, while Federalism is its heart and soul. Therefore, I'd rather have an Alito on the bench than another Ruth Bader Ginsberg."

I've never heard anyone sum up my feelings on the matter so succinctly before. Thank you.

"...abortion isn't expressed in the Constitution, while Federalism is its heart and soul...."

Hey. You sound sorta like Robert Bork.

The abortion issue is easy: Have a popular vote with 10 choices.

1. Ban Abortion: requires a 50+% majority to pass.

2-10. The latest month in which a woman can have an abortion (with exception for emergencies) and a man can opt out of rights and responsibilities for the child (after he is aware of the pregnancy).

Every voter selects one of the 10.

The form for men can have a fee about the price of an abortion. If the woman has an abortion, she will be entitled to half of that fee.

Just for sh*ts and giggles, I'm going to throw out a little red meat...

"I'm pro-choice up to the point of natural viability."

Please explain. One could take that as far as to say if a baby is born premature, with brady syndrome (heart periodicaly stops beating due to under developed brain stem), then would it be ok to let the baby die since it has not yet reached the point of "natural viability"? Or does inside/outside the womb make the difference?

Thanks!

Aaron Hood
a.k.a
American Patrol

Your comments about Democrats favoring big government is something that I wish the GOP would remember. A filibuster really hurts the party the favors big government. If the Dems filibuster this judge, then let's debate the issue forever. The side-effect is that no new bills will be approved until the filibuster ends. Sounds good to me.

RE: "I'd rather have an Alito on the bench than another Ruth Bader Ginsberg."
I agree 100%. Justice Ginsberg and her pals are the absolute worst ... judges ... EVER. With the likes of her running the court, we won't know day-by-day what is legal and what isn't as the court's decisions twist in the wind every which way to please left-wing opinion. (For example, if Lawrence v. Texas basically establishes a right to engage in sexual conduct without interference by morality laws, then will the high court have the guts to do the obvious when laws governing prostitution or strip clubs come their way? I doubt it.)

--------

My proposal to the abortion issue: there is a short paragraph in the opening to the Roe v. Wade decision that defines the high court’s view of the matter. Let’s make it an amendment to the constitution. Liberals can’t object to the wording because it would be taken directly from Roe, but they’ll try. They don’t want this in the Constitution because it takes away their ability to use it for political purposes.

Right on cue, one mention of Stephen's position on choice and flapping down from the belfry come those whose Brobdingnagian compassion ends as the infant pokes his or her nose out of the vagina--that mysterious moment during which big government ends and limited government begins, when the child must pull up his or her own bootstraps and shoulder the misfortunes and decisions of his parents. A true miracle, that moment.

Abortions for some
Tiny American Flags For others
-Kang

aaron,

Well, once the baby is born and breathing on its own, killing it is not an abortion now, is it?

Why oh why did Roe proponents build their house of straw when, at that time, they could have almost as easily have used bricks?

Actually, Democrats are in favor of eavesdropping on your telephone conversations, they just don't want Republicans to do it.

I find your mention of 1998 interesting. Not coincidentally, that’s the year I dropped out of the “R” party, and became an “I”.

I know this an Alito thread but....

One would think with a president that has such a low approval rating and who has taken the country to war while boasting about all the allies like the marshall Islands that are with us--that a democrat could stand up during one of the 159 news conferences held every day and say "Folks, this is a mess. Now you either agree with me or you don't and if you do, please explain what I'm missing."

Joe Biden could do it, if he'd just stop talking all the time.

But then, America isn't as bright as it likes to think it is. Look what it did in the 2004 Presidential Election. Alito will get the nod and all of this stuff going on in hearings is pure theater. Bad theater too..

Well here's what I say to all of you....your opinions are like assholes..everybody's got one. The best comment I ever saw on this subject was on a bumper sticker many years ago. It read: "If men could become pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement". Enough said.

There are sadly zillions of examples of the Republican party supporting Big Government, but wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade isn't one of them.

Quite the opposite, in fact, since that would turn the matter back to the States, and properly so, thus allowing the--you know--voters to actually have their say on the matter.

The result? Very liberal abortion rights in a handful of states. The outlawing of it save in the case of rape and incest in a handful of others (although then women could travel to another state for the procedure anyway). And in the vast majority of states, popular restrictions on abortion: parental/spousal notification, no public funding, waiting periods, etc.

The pro-abortion-in-all-cases extremists (yes, there are some on each side) know that once the public is allowed it's say, the right to an abortion will finally be weighed against other concerns. That's exactly what they don't want, because it's an argument they can't win. Thus the constant lie we've now been fed for thirty years, to wit, that overturning Roe v. Wade means that abortion will be "outlawed."

That's (knowingly) wrong on the most basic level of the issue. If we lived in a sane world, they would get called on that one every single time.

It has less to do with how bright (or not) Americans are and more to do with the fact that the Dems (My party) didn't run anyone even remotely electable...
When one's choices are two asshats, most folks will take the asshat they know over the one they don't.

Laurie, the sizable percentage of women who oppose abortion or who feel it should be limited belies your statement. After all, they already can become pregnant, and they don't feel it should be a "sacrement."

The issue for me is only "Does a woman have the right to abort her whateverthehellitis?" for a few moments before I get to the "Do I (and, by extension, the government) have the right to tell the woman 'You can't do that?'"

It's the second question that makes me pro-choice.

Not the first.

Just my point John, which you seem to have missed, if pregnancy only applied to men....it wouldn't matter what women thought...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look back in history to see just how much say women had on anything substantial. I don't think this issue would be any different. Quite frankly, men aren't entitled to an opinion on this subject. Until and unless they've experienced what it's like to be a woman, their opinions have no relevance.

Not allowed to express an opinion unless I've experienced the subject firsthand? I could swear I've heard that argument in another context recently...

Or, as Goldstein might say: UTERUSHAWK!

Laurie,

Do you also believe in the argument that those who have never served in the military have no right to support the war? Better yet, do I get to tell any woman who opines on whether or not (male) circumcision should be illegal that her opinion isn't relevant?

Whether or not an unborn child is, in fact, a child isn't a question for only women, and for those who believe that said child is a child, the question of whether or not it should be legal is, similarly, not related to gender in the least. To try to frame the issue as one involving an overbearing patriarchal government trying to keep women down is simply silly.

"Just my point John, which you seem to have missed, if pregnancy only applied to men". . then there would still be differences of opinion on the matter. Your point is invalid.

Your view of abortion is perfect!

"Quite frankly, men aren't entitled to an opinion on this subject. Until and unless they've experienced what it's like to be a woman, their opinions have no relevance."

What a bunch of bunk.

For one thing, I've never heard anyone tell a pro-choice man to sit down and shut up. Alan Alda seems to be wecome at all the rallies.

And when Roe v. Wade was decided, all the black robes were worn by men, so I guess you believe that decision is invalid?

I don't understand why Alito's nomination is all about abortion. Even if he would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade who are the other 4 judges that would go along with it? I can see Thomas, Scalia, maybe Robert's. Who else?

Oh my! I guess I struck a nerve. Fortunately, there were some forward thinking men on the Supreme Court back in 1973 whose view of women as having equal standing to others in our society was, shall we say, progressive. And as for your scolding me about framing the argument to be one of a patriarchial society keeping women down. I guess you haven't read much about the history of cultures and societies over the centuries. The control of women and the reproduction of women has been a recurring theme for centuries. Don't show your ignorance.

GIVE ALITO A BREAK ...

mynewsbot.com

-- for a few moments before I get to the "Do I (and, by extension, the government) have the right to tell the woman 'You can't do that?'"--

So, you're not for national health care then?

--Fortunately, there were some forward thinking men on the Supreme Court back in 1973 whose view of women as having equal standing to others in our society was, shall we say, progressive. --

Uhh, not that I recall. I thought Blackmum's??? papers were open, someone wrote a book and they didn't realize the brouhaha it would cause.

Clueless is more like it. Needlessly dividing the country for 35 years, now it's not about abortion, it's about power, funding, access and jobs.

I'm pro-choice all the way, but I'd like to see Roe overturned. It would be worth it just for the value as a social experiment. It would be neat to see the effects of banning and allowing abortion is various urban, suburban, and rural areas.

aaron, all the way down the birth canal?

'Til they're 18.

Just kidding. Yeah, the end of the 3rd should probably be off limits except for emergencies.

"Oh my! I guess I struck a nerve." Yep, sexists of any stripe get on my nerves.

Interestingly enough, you complain about ignorance of history, than demonstrate the same. Abortion has been around for thousand of years, and has varied as to its availability. The original push by the AMA to prohibit abortion in the US was out of concern for women's health, as 19th and early 20th century medicine proved almost as much a hazard for the women with a licensed professional as a "back-alley" practioner.

I am presuming you are pro-choice, Laurie. So am I, with roughly the same caveats as Stephen Green, but arguments like yours strike me as offensive male-bashing. So you're neither winning converts or encouraging support from those on your side.

To be fair, Laurie, I don't dispute that some people (both historical and contemporary) might want to restrict abortion because of some belief that women aren't capable of making decisions on their own, but I think it's absurd for you to pretend that's at the core of the debate now.

John's already mentioned the fact that the original ban on abortion had a lot more to do with protecting women than an attempt to oppress them. I've pointed out that many people believe that there's more than one person to consider when considering abortion. If you can provide any reason why men aren't just as capable of having a philosophical debate about when true human life begins (which is the core of the debate), I'd be glad to hear it, but I suspect you've got nothing but sexist nonsense.