stupid hicks

I read legislative developments like this and wonder (maybe fear is the better word) how our country is going to be able to compete effectively in the future.

It is exactly like that. The Mississippi legislature better get busy on the latter...

It's not quite like segregation. In my opinion, there is no reasonable argument that can justify slavery or treating peoples of different races differently, while there is a reasonable argument that can be made that it is inappropriate to end the life of an unborn human entity.

Also, in prohibiting segregation, the constitutional basis for equal protection is pretty well grounded in the 14th Amendment. On the other hand, even the most vocal abortion supporters have recognized that Roe v. Wade stands on shaky constitutional ground.

Yes, yes it is. Excellent point, Billy.

"...even the most vocal abortion supporters have recognized that Roe v. Wade stands on shaky constitutional ground."

Shaky ground? Most (and every honest person) realized that Roe stands on NO constitutional ground, regardless of its merits otherwise.

"On the other hand, even the most vocal abortion supporters have recognized that Roe v. Wade stands on shaky constitutional ground."

Um, not me.

I mean, the basic right to personal autonomy is "shaky"? There's a scary thought.

"Most (and every honest person) realized that Roe stands on NO constitutional ground, regardless of its merits otherwise."

Hyperbolic much?

wait... will this effect one of my penumbras?

It's not as though access to abortions in North Dakota is easy as it is -- there are only 2 places in the state that will perform abortions

Since 2/3 of the births in ND are the result of incest, it seems the ban is not much of a ban at all.

Yes, ND is so well known for incest. Moron.

1016 and 1012: As someone who considers themselves firmly pro-choice, i agree with you that roe is constitutionally dubious. But that seems to me to be a separate issue from what's going on in ND and MS. I say this because passing legislation like that seems to call into question less the substance of roe as the ability of the supreme court to decide roe, i.e. "to say what the law is." and while the same claims of constitutional "shakiness" can perhaps be made with respect to marbury, i think we can all agree that it goes to the heart of the way the judicial branch's role (and, more broadly, the role of each of the branches of government) have been defined since the beginning of their functioning (if not conception). while perhaps the whole 3-branch system and the way its been interpreted needs to be reevaluated, that is a much larger issue in my mind than the regulation of abortion, and should be treated with the respect and seriousness it deserves. to me, then, ND and MS's actions are a cheap shot at a much larger and more important issue that perhaps merits discussion. Commandeering that issue to discuss a politically hot issue, i.e. abortion, strikes me as both sleazy and stupid.

just some thoughts.....

"I mean, the basic right to personal autonomy is "shaky"? There's a scary thought."

The right to personal autonomy is a basic human right. It's just that it isn't found anywhere in the constitution.

Besides, abortion is not a question of unfettered personal autonomy---the question is how far that autonomy extends once it butts up against other peoples/entity's rights.

This also means more North Dakotans will be born. Frightening.

our country sucks. i'm moving to ibiza

I think it is ludicrous to have a law on the books waiting in the wings for some other law to be dismantled. While it may be in anticipation of that future date, it cannot help but have a current effect on the populace--which it should not, because it's not really the law. It's like a freaking sword of Damocles hanging over all those whom it may one day affect--and doing so in contravention of the current law. Think about if Mississippi passed a law that would put all of its African American citizens immediately up for sale, should the Fourteenth Amendment one day be repealed. Legislators overstepping the bounds of law and even propriety is what this crap is. The law in the future is for future lawmakers, not for those of today, obsessed with sending a message. If and when Roe is overturned, it would be for the lawmakers at that time to fashion a statute in keeping with that precedent.

Right, 10:35. I've always said that the main problem with the United States is that there isn't a constant stream of DJ Tiesto music and a constant supply of ecstasy.

I was just informed that about 25 states have a law like this on their books.

10:45 - is it a "law like this" or is it that they just didn't legislatively override the existing anit-abortion laws at the time Roe was decided? Big diffrence.

Outlawing abortion will not prevent the rapid depopulation of that god-foresaken state.

"I think it is ludicrous to have a law on the books waiting in the wings for some other law to be dismantled. "

Actually, few states bother to take unconstitutional laws off their books. They just cease enforcing them after the Court rules them (or ones like them) unconstitutional. So if Roe (or Lawrence or Loving or Brown or Griswold etc) were overturned, it would be in the executive branch's whether to prosecute these behaviors, since the laws criminalizing the behaviors was never repealed.

WHITE
GIRLS
WITH
ASIAN
GUYS!!!!!!!

Among other things, I'd be curious as to how this stupid hicked-out bill defines 'overturn'.

for those who think it is absurd to have a law on the books waiting for a scotus decision to be overturned ...

would you feel similarly if, assuming hypothetically the federal law banned abortions and scotus upheld, a state law was passed which declared abortions legal once the scotus decision was overturned?

Lots of states already have so-called trigger laws that make abortion illegal upon the reversal of Roe v Wade, or still have their old abortion bans on the books that could ostensibly be brought back to life after a Roe reversal.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=121780

Louisiana passed this same bill last year. Like 11:20 said - there are many that have already passed similar bills

obviously, there's nothing wrong with states passing somewhat symbolic bills like these, to make a point or make their preferences known. it's clearly a better a tactic than what ND's sister to the south did last year, in passing a law solely in an effort to challenge Roe v. Wade. Thankfully, voters put it to sleep. more generally, however, some interesting theories have been floated about what exactly the impact of Roe v. Wade being overturned would have on states and on the abortion debate, nationally. Jeff Rosen, among others, feels that it would be a net positive. His argument: By giving abortion policy back to the states, the divisiveness of the issue would subside. Most states would enshrine abortion rights within the state. Some wouldn't, but the very REAL prospect of having abortion outlawed would undoubtedly provoke a backlash within the states that sought to take it away, and the end result would be liberalization. See, e.g. the South Dakota example I referenced above. North Dakota legislators may love to "make a point" with this bill, but if the actual prospect is staring them in the face, I would suspect that things might turn out differently.

It's obv. just a trap to make sure everyone is politically on the right side:
ie- "Last year, John Smith voted for abortion- do you want him to represent ND?"

When abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions.

11:28,

That's a sound let-federalism-do-its-job answer as far as it goes, but it ignores the unfortunate reality that the largest group of women who have abortions are socioeconomically disadvantaged. People in a comfortable economic position might be able to travel to another state to have an abortion, but some impoverished woman may not have that same opportunity. Isn't the purpose of the federal government to protect the minority from the will of the majority?

Are contingent laws like this common? Do many other states have "if x conlaw changes, we will enforce y law?"

11:51,

The fact that some people could thwart a state's desire that abortions not be had is not a reason for the state to simply allow all people to thwart that desire. In other words, if you think X is bad, and you know that some people will still be able to do X, that's not grounds for saying, "Well hell, everyone should be able to do X then."

11:51 - I don't think it's the PURPOSE of the federal government to protect the minority from the will of the majority; that's more the province of the bill of rights, constitutional amendments, and statutes, as enforced by our judicial system. However, I think you're neglecting the fact that the situation w/ disadvantaged women you're describing already exists in most states that are pro-life (e.g. South Dakota [one abortion clinic in the entire state, open only sporadically], and Mississippi [same deal, I believe]). I believe that in letting the pro-life nutjobs get their way in a particular state, the ramifications of the absoluteness of the position will prove very costly. Even though women in SD may have to drive six hours to Sioux Falls, they still know it's available. Knowing that it could become unavailable was enough to defeat the state's amendment last year in a state-wide referendum. I think that the benefits gained from not having a national abortion policy, either supported strongly in various states, or being chipped away in devious ways in others, is not worth it. Leave it to the states. I have faith in the American people. Call me naive

damn, now how will white girls abort their half-asian/half-white mutt babies?

WGWAG bitches!

Why would the ND law punish only people who perform abortions, not the women who receive them? That makes no sense to me.

damn, now how will white girls abort their half-asian/half-white mutt babies?

WGWAG bitches!

They should have left it to the states the first time. This isn't like Civil Rights where minorities were uniformly disenfranchised from taking part in the political system. People (women) had the right to vote on this issue and indeed, in many states a political consensus was forming on the right to an abortion and the limitations of that right. Unfortunately, Roe hijakced the issue from its propoer place in the political fold, constitutionalized it and created this backlash of looney nut job pro-lifers.

"for those who think it is absurd to have a law on the books waiting for a scotus decision to be overturned ...

would you feel similarly if, assuming hypothetically the federal law banned abortions and scotus upheld, a state law was passed which declared abortions legal once the scotus decision was overturned?"

No. That would be absurd.

And how half-assed of them. "well, WE don't want to be the ones to actually challenge it, but if someone else does, give us the benefit!" Buncha fucking wussy free-riders.

If all the states pass "trigger" laws but no one actually passes a ban -- Roe will never be overturned. No one would have standing to challenge or enforce the law, it's not a justiciable controversy. How retarded.

word*star @ 12:12,

It's not uncommon for a state to impose a law that is aimed at one particular group and not another. For example, in NY, you cannot operate a poker parlor, but you can play in one. Does that make any sense? Of course not. The rationale is based on enforcement. It is much easier to monitor the one or two doctors willing to perform an abortion than to monitor the untold number of women who want/need an abortion. Plus, at least in this case, it would probably be political suicide to impose a jail term/fine on a woman seeking an abortion (who, as was previously noted, is likely to be impoverished) as opposed to a "rich" doctor.

"Why would the ND law punish only people who perform abortions, not the women who receive them? That makes no sense to me."

If abortion or some form of abortion is made illegal, there is a reason to penalize the doctor and not the woman. Many women don't *want* to have an abortion; instead they feel pressured due to their financial circumstances or pressure from their boyfriend or whatever. If given the choice to have not been pregnant in the first place or to have an abortion, I think almost every woman would choose the option of not getting pregnant in the first place.

No one pressures the doctor to do the abortion. Thus, the doctor would be more culpable than the woman, and it makes sense to me to not penalize the woman who feels pressured/anxious/depressed about her current situation.

(Note: it's not inconsistent to think that abortion is wrong because it ends the life of a human entity, and yet still feel empathy for the woman who is under a lot of pressure to not continue the pregnancy due to her circumstances. I think it's similar to suicide: while I don't think that suicide is ever a right decision, I recognize that many people feel pressured to attempt it and I empathize with them. Thus, I don't support imposition of penalties on those who attempt suicide. These suicidal people, like pregnant mothers, instead need support and programs to help them through their difficulties.)

Don't you people understand that women have the right to irresponsibly engage in unprotected sex, therefore they have to exercise that right? These women have to get pregnant. There's really no other choice.

It's just like me having to daily exercise my rights under the First and Second Amends. You can find me dancing in a chicken suit in front of my house filled with over 1 million hand guns. It's easy to spot, I have thousands of American flags burning at all times. It's getting really expensive, but they're constitutional rights, therefore I have to exercise them at all times.

how could anyone challenge this bill - they wouldn't have standing. Of course, i can imagine the beginning of the majority opinion now...

"in the interests of justice, we have decided to waive a constitutional requirement in order to unconstitutionally declare something unconstitutional..."

10:12AM -- please point to the part of the 14th Amendment that prohibits treating people differently based on race. In fact, point to the part of the 14th that mentions race at all. It's not in the text. And if you think it was in the intent of the Congress, explain how they could have intended that the 14th prohibit school segregation, then turn around and mandate segregation in DC schools. (10 points if you can do it without citing Judge McConnell!)

11:16AM "a state law was passed which declared abortions legal once the scotus decision was overturned?"

By default actions are legal until the state makes them illegal. Therefore if there is no law on the state's books that makes (for example) insider trading illegal, once the federal law no longer exists, insider trading is legal.

12:48AM -- so if a woman comes to a doctor and says, "I need an abortion," and the doctor says, "No, I will instead offer you my compassion, because I don't want to go to jail for doing this," and the woman says, "If you won't do it, I'm going to ingest some random combination of chemicals that will force the abortion," and the doctor says, "That's probably going to kill you as well, but here, have some more compassion!" ... this seems to you the proper way for a doctor to behave? And you don't consider that to be someone "pressuring" the doctor?

The choice of penalizing physicians instead of the people demanding their services is a political one. It's less politically costly to put a doctor in prison for two years (as the federal law against dilation and extraction does) than to impose any penalties on the person seeking the abortion. That there would be no abortions without women asking for them is an irrelevant point to the politicians.

As for the federalists who are convinced that political pressure would force states to make abortion legal in the absence of a Constitutional right -- what exactly was keeping those states from legalizing abortion *before* Roe?

12:17 -- so... now that minorities are all COMPLETELY enfranchised (since, you know, we've eradicated racism and all, just like we've eradicated sexism, totally and completely), maybe we should re-vote on Civil Rights? Because, you know, stuff like that really should be put up to a vote. It shouldn't be inherently guaranteed to us or anything.

White women account for 60% of all abortions.

"Many women don't *want* to have an abortion; instead they feel pressured due to their financial circumstances or pressure from their boyfriend or whatever. "

If abortion is really murder, how could this possibly be an adequate excuse?

210,

what does that have to do with anything?

2:15, how can something be murder if your options are 1) kill something that might be human or 2) let that thing control your body?

That's not murder. It's self-defense. If women willingly give up their bodies to carry a fetus to term, kudos to them. But the alternative isn't "murder."

Geesh, you people and your inflammatory, counterproductive rhetoric.

2:10,

Umm...(1) its 57.8% and (2) 74% of Americans are white...(I don't know the statistic for women in America who are white)

Sooo....a disproportionate number of non-white women have abortions based solely on race (although personally I don't think this is a race issue, it's probably a socioeconomic issue).

White women account for 60% of all abortions.

"That's not murder. It's self-defense."

Talk about rhetoric. That damn aggressive fetus is attacking people again! It should be locked up.

You don't have to be "attacked" to act in self-defense, genius. You only need to be in danger.

You're on pretty shaky ground there. In many states, you can also act to defend another when that person is in danger. If the fetus is a person, as some believe, then all of a sudden you're justifying killing abortion doctors because a person was in danger.

Its a bad analogy, no matter what you believe.

12:29 - Sorry, I didn't sign my post. I'm very much pro choice. I asked "If abortion is really murder, how could [feeling pressured by lack of money or support] possibly be an adequate excuse?" because I think that question exposes how the majority of pro-lifers actually don't believe that a fetus is really the same thing as a child. If they really believed that, then there should be no question that an aborting mother is a murderer.

2:29:

"Geesh, you people and your inflammatory, counterproductive rhetoric."

You're calling a human fetus "that thing" and "something that might be human." And that's not inflammatory rhetoric?

3:11:

Thank you for telling us pro-lifers what we actually believe.

While I don't profess to know what a majority of pro-lifers believe, one certainly does not have to believe that a fetus is either (1) the same as a child and must be given the same rights as a born child or (2) a worthless piece of tissue that can be destroyed on a whim.

There is some intermediate ground.

I can't for the life of me figure out how pro-life people (who believe abortion is the taking of an innocent life) can stand by these laws when they all have exceptions for cases of rape and incest. How do they rationalize that?

3:00 - I assume then, under that logic, you support the Iraq war.

This is the reason I moved out of ND. The legislature is crazy. They have "Red Light" Republicans that vote NO on all spending increases, and keep cutting taxes.

"While I don't profess to know what a majority of pro-lifers believe, one certainly does not have to believe that a fetus is either (1) the same as a child and must be given the same rights as a born child or (2) a worthless piece of tissue that can be destroyed on a whim."

This is 100% correct and is the answer to 4:08's question ("I can't for the life of me figure out how pro-life people (who believe abortion is the taking of an innocent life) can stand by these laws when they all have exceptions for cases of rape and incest. How do they rationalize that?").

Some people who consider themselves pro-life believe that, in the case of rape or incest, the woman's interest in avoiding the emotional/mental damage that will occur due to birthing a baby conceived through rape or incest outweighs the life at stake and should come first. This is not inconsistent because, like 4:04 said, the life of a fetus can be judged important and worthy of respect without determining that it outweighs any and all other considerations. In short, there is a huge difference between supporting legal abortions for rape victims, and legal abortions for all.

1:41 - I never said that minorities are completely franchised. I said that minorities were disenfranchised wholesale (I used the word "uniformly") before the passage of the CRA and VRA and the imposition of the federal govt. You've misread my post.

I have no idea where you're going with your second remark. Are you saying that just b/c racism and sexism still exist judges should read into the constitution certain guarantees? Do you know some omniscient judges who can tell the average downtrodden American voter what the Constitution "really means," their votes be damned? (Perhaps you can tell us.) Secondly, as a purely historical matter, we (as in Congress) DID vote for Civil Rights in 1964 and for voting rights in '65.

I happen to think the best arena for resolving controversial issues is the political arena, assuming people get to voice their concerns.

4:23 - So on what grounds does the government get to decide exactly which "other considerations" outweigh the fetus's right to life, once you admit that the fetus's rights aren't absolute, the same way a born child's are?

What privileges the emotional scarring a raped woman suffers over the emotional scarring, say, a woman knows with certainty she can't properly raise a child would suffer from her pregnancy? Why is it the government's role to legislate emotions, deeming the first adequate to overrule a fetus's life, but not the second? And why should a woman have to possess certain feelings in order to be legally allowed to perform a certain act? Isn't that more than a little bizarre as a way to design a legal regime?

You don't have to be "attacked" to act in self-defense, genius. You only need to be in danger.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 25, 2007 03:00 PM
___________

Remember, we're not talking about instances where the fetus threatens the *life* of the mother. The recent partial-birth abortion statute permits ending the life of the fetus if the mother's life is threatened. I think almost all "pro-life/anti-abortion would grant that the death of the fetus is permissible if the woman's life is endangered.

It's the health exception that is the sticking point. Abortion supporters advocate for abortion to protect the health of the mother (and under Doe v. Bolton and progeny, "health" includes psychological well-being). That is where the self-defense analogy falls apart, I believe. While it is permitted to use lethal self-defense against an attacker who threatens your life (or substantial bodily harm), you can't use lethal self-defense against an attacker who is only threatening your health or mental well-being. So I don't think the abortion argument of self-defense works for the vast majority of abortions that are done for the "health" of the mother.

"I can't for the life of me figure out how pro-life people (who believe abortion is the taking of an innocent life) can stand by these laws when they all have exceptions for cases of rape and incest. How do they rationalize that?"

Count me as a pro-life person who can't rationalize that, and thinks that abortion should be prohibited also for rape and incest, because after all, they are still innocent human beings.

word*star--

These are tough questions. Nobody is saying that its easy to draw lines here. But there are always lines. I can do the same thing to the logic of pro-choice people--for instance, you say that a woman has a right to personal autonomy and choice. If thats true, then how come she doesn't have the right to abort when she is 8 months pregnant? I don't understand how you can rationalize a system that imposes upon a woman's right to autonomy and forces her to carry a baby to term even though she doesn't want to.

I understand that many like to draw the line at viability, but thats just as arbitrary as drawing the line at rape and incest, and the viability line is always moving depending on the state of medical science.

"Nobody is saying that its easy to draw lines here. But there are always lines."

That's punting! I can defend drawing the line at viability/brain development from a utilitarian and moral perspective. The fetus doesn't really have rights, is not fully a person, in my opinion, until its brain is functioning. And at viability (wherever that may be), the greater good is served by delivering a live baby than a termination.

I plan on knocking up lots of white women so access to legal abortions is a must.

WHITEGIRLSWITHASIANGUYS
WHITEGIRLSWITHASIANGUYS
WHITEGIRLSWITHASIANGUYS
WHITEGIRLSWITHASIANGUYS
WHITEGIRLSWITHASIANGUYS
WHITEGIRLSWITHASIANGUYS
WHITEGIRLSWITHASIANGUYS
WHITEGIRLSWITHASIANGUYS

Deep thoughts,

Let's take it a step further: instead of continuing to beat the issue of "abortion: right or wrong" to an absolute pulp, why don't we engage in a (gasp!) more interesting debate about the separation of powers and federalism issues raised by legislation such as ND and MS (and apparently half of the other states). Or were there a few too many law students asleep during that part of conlaw?

To all the commenters, I say we either (1) engage in a real discussion about the LEGAL/CONSITUTIONAL arguments for/against abortion (as opposed to the policy arguments); OR (2) discuss other legal implications of the ND-type legislation, such as issues of separation of powers/federalism.

Otherwise, what the f*!k is the point of reading a LEGAL blog? If I wanted to read the type of rhetoric on both sides that is being spewed in this thread, I could just visit my nearest NARAL or RIGHT TO LIFE websites to read up on the same arguments that have been made by the same people in the same way since Roe was decided. Wake me when it's over.

xoxo,

YAWN

"The fetus doesn't really have rights, is not fully a person, in my opinion, until its brain is functioning. And at viability (wherever that may be), the greater good is served by delivering a live baby than a termination."

I submit that "wherever that may be" is the key phrase in your post. No one knows, and viability is relative and changing. Anyway, this "line" is completely arbitrary and is no different than my statement that the greater good is served by aborting in the case of rape. And, what happens when medical science progresses to the point where a fetus can live outside the womb at 3 months? Or brain functioning is detected at 10 weeks? Or earlier?

The only truly consistent position in this debate is the one taken by a poster above--namely, that all abortion is wrong because an innocent life is at stake. Once you reject that idea, you have to engage in line-drawing that is inherently arbitrary.

Yawn - Your view of what is "legal" and what is not is sophmoric.

4:23 - I completely agree that line-drawing is arbitrary when you're close to the line, but that doesn't mean you don't make the best guess and adjust it when you get further knowledge. And of course, the vast majority of cases won't be close to the line.

word*star,

your defense of this conversation being legal is even more so. and if you're going to use obnoxious words like "sophomoric," I would you suggest you use a spell check as well.

xoxo,

yawn

4:33, sorry you found my comment so confusing.

Here's the point: we don't leave these things up to the public, because that would result in tyranny of the majority. That sometimes the majority gets things right (a la the Civil Rights votes) is not sufficient reason to trust them, always, all the time.

As someone else here noted, judicial review could be regarded as somewhat controversial and shaky -- but here's the rub: people only start complaining about judicial review when it starts going against them. Forty years ago, conservatives HATED judicial review. Now that their boys Alito and Roberts are in the hot seats, they're hella warming up to it.

The problem is that you can't view judicial review itself as a political issue -- it's like trying to use religion to argue science or vice versa. Theoretically, they are totally different and separate spheres of influence. That's the MEANING of that whole separation of powers thing.

So the question is not, should issues X, Y, and Z be left up to the legislatures. The question is, do we have judicial review and what is its purpose?

I subscribe to the thinking of many brilliant legal scholars that one purpose of the judiciary is to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Thus, the answer cannot possibly be "well, the majority has started doing the right thing, so stop intervening." The answer can only be, and always is, "good for you, majority. But if you screw up, we'll still be here to protect the minority's rights."

(Note: minority means political minority, as in, people who hold views that clash with the majority.)

"...and if you're going to use obnoxious words like "sophomoric," I would you suggest you use a spell check as well."

Schweet! I've attracted my first spell check troll. I'm gonna make it big in the blogosphere.

word*star: 2, yawn: 0

word*star, jonb and WGWAG in troll orgy

6:08

"Here's the point: we don't leave these things up to the public, because that would result in tyranny of the majority."

"Things?" What things? We leave huge questions--the welfare state, education, immigration--to the public. What makes this "thing" more important than the rest? Also, I'd like to point out that our political system is inherently counter-majoritarian. It's set up in such a way where electoral minorities have more political weight than their numbers would warrant. (See the relative weight the NRA throws around, and, in a former era, the teetotatalers.)

"That sometimes the majority gets things right (a la the Civil Rights votes) is not sufficient reason to trust them, always, all the time."

I'm not saying we should trust majorities anytime. I'm saying that political compromise--with the understanding that minorities have a great deal of political weight (assuming they can vote)--is the best way to resolve controversial issues. Indeed, it's the way the vast majority of these issues are decided.

"As someone else here noted, judicial review could be regarded as somewhat controversial and shaky -- but here's the rub: people only start complaining about judicial review when it starts going against them. Forty years ago, conservatives HATED judicial review."

This is a different issue altogether. I don't care about what agenda people are pushing. I'm a pro-choice Dem, but I don't think that judicial activism for the sake of social politcy is the right way for policy to be enacted.

"Now that their boys Alito and Roberts are in the hot seats, they're hella warming up to it."

I don't know what this means. In terms of the last abortion case, they "hella" (I'm sorry about the misuse of this word, but I'm straight up east coast and have no idea what "hella" means) upheld a statute that was in line with Casey. I don't think judicial review is the issue. The issue is whether the Court creates new fundamental rights under the Const.

"The problem is that you can't view judicial review itself as a political issue --it's like trying to use religion to argue science or vice versa."

(*?*)

"Theoretically, they are totally different and separate spheres of influence. That's the MEANING of that whole separation of powers thing."

They're actually overlapping spheres of influence by definition. What do you think the judiciary is reviewing? They're reviewing executive action and legislation. Judicial review is not a separation of powers issue; it's a mixed govt (checks and balances in Civics class) issue.

"I subscribe to the thinking of many brilliant legal scholars that one purpose of the judiciary is to protect against the tyranny of the majority."

What? Like Dred Scot? Majority of the country dislikes slavery, but our saviors, the Supreme Court, upholds the rights of the minority.

It's been nice talking.

I think "hella" is a computer geek thing, not a regional thing.

It roughly translates "very" or "totally" -- kind of like a re-working of "hell of a," only used as an adverb (instead of preposition).

I find it quite troubling and distressing that we now have 78 comments on abortion and not a single commenter pointed out the many similarities between the ABORTIONISTS and the NAZIS.

I am pro-choice in the sense that if a woman made a choice to take her pants off, I feel she has no right to terminate the life that her choice created. If she did not chose to engage in the act (i.e. rape, which includes most counts of incest, I assume--other than that I have no idea why sleeping with your cousin would put you on any safer moral grounds when you kill a fetus), then that choice remains. And of course if the mother's life is in danger, you do what you have to do to protect the woman. That's how you rationalize the exceptions.

So in terms of drawing lines, I say you do it at the act that everyone knows might result in a pregnancy. If you don't want to get pregnant, keep your friggin' pants on!

12:46, interesting how the only party whose sex life you seem to care about is the woman's.

I mean, I guess it is only NATURAL for men to have sex. Women who do it (very unnatural, of course -- men NEED sex, women only WANT it), well if they get their slutty selves knocked up, they gotta pay the price!

Well, perhaps if the current idiots in our Administration would acknowledge that abstinence-only sex education is an utter failure, insurance companies were required to subsidize birth control (and not just Viagra), and pharmacies and pharmacists stopped harassing women trying to get birth control and emergency contraception, we wouldn't need to worry so much about abortions. But that's far too sensible for the conservative right - they're not concerned about unwanted children, they're concerned about people having sex.

"12:46, interesting how the only party whose sex life you seem to care about is the woman's.

I mean, I guess it is only NATURAL for men to have sex. Women who do it (very unnatural, of course -- men NEED sex, women only WANT it), well if they get their slutty selves knocked up, they gotta pay the price!"

Thats not fair. I'm not 12:46, but its pretty clear why he only referenced the sex life of the woman: its the woman's right to choose that we are talking about. I find it interesting how pro-choicers want the focus to be on the woman -- its my body, personal autonomy, men don't understand, etc -- until someone brings up personal responsibility, and then all of a sudden you want to talk about men too.

In short, I have no doubt that in the case of a man who got a woman pregnant and is now forced to support a child that he did not want, this poster would say "keep your pants on" just as quickly.

Fortunately, the whole "keep your pants on" line of argument (seen as a tranparent effort to punish or deter women who have sex) has already been addressed and discarded as constitutionally inadequate in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). As I understand Eisenstadt, if you're going to have a law that seeks to deter "fornication," in order to be rational it would have to ban ALL birth control as well. And I truly doubt that's gonna happen.

About "hella": It's the No. Cal/Ore/Wash equivalent to the Mass. "wicked." I first heard it in SF. Maybe it spread to computer geekitude from there?

The "keep your pants on" argument is basically besides the point, as it clearly solves nothing. But that doesn't mean that it is a sexist line of thinking, only an unrealistic one. Most people with that viewpoint want to deter everyone from having sex, not just women. I just wish the knee-jerk, you hate women, their bodies, their sexuality, etc, argument would be laid to rest. You do not have to be a woman-hating sexist in order to be against abortion, or to question the pro-choice movement or its philosophy. Its a straw man argument.

I don't know, anon 9:55. There's always something a bit icky about that argument. It can be seen as legally sexist because it forces women to disproportiantely bear the burden of sex -- that a man might have to pay some child support doesn't balance out the burdens at all. More to the point, there's always this underlying current that "dumb sluts should keep their legs shut." That's pretty sexist, if you ask me.

I think there are many carefully considered moral arguments against abortion that are not sexist, but they focus on the moral status of the fetus, not on penalizing the dumb slutty sluts for having sex.

This argument doesn't "force women to disproportiantely bear the burden of sex." It is just a simple fact that women DO disproportiantely bear the burden of sex (or, more specifically, pregnancy), whether abortion is legal or not. You say that the obligation to pay child support does not balance out the burdens. I agree. So what? This makes the argument that people should be responsible for their choices a sexist argument?

Also, "dumb sluts should keep their legs shut" is, again, a straw man argument. The poster above said only that women have a choice as to whether or not to have sex. This is undeniably true and applies to men as well. The poster believes that once that choice is made, women have to take responsibility for any unintended, but foreseeable, consequences of that choice. This is arguable. But nothing about his post suggests that a women who has sex is a slut, or that sluts deserve what they get.

Here's a hypo for you: a man rides a motorcycle because he enjoys it. He knows full well that an injury could occur to him if he were to have an accident. Being responsible, he wears a helmet. However, he falls and the helmet cracks and he gets hurt. He knew before hand that there was a small chance that this would happen because, after all, helmets are not foolproof.

If I told you that I believe that this man chose to undertake an activity, enjoyable and legal but known to have dangers, and that he should accept the consequences of that decision, would you say that I hate people who ride motorcycles?

Anon - Sometimes there are rhetorical meanings behind words that are more than just the words themselves. To me, the way I've heard "keep your pants on" always has a message behind it of "women should be pure, and should be punished if they aren't."

"It is just a simple fact that women DO disproportiantely bear the burden of sex (or, more specifically, pregnancy), whether abortion is legal or not."

Well, that's not true at all. Abortion (and birth control) significantly reduce the burden on women. That's the whole point of the equal protection view of reproductive rights. Given that technology exists to reduce the burdens, forcing women to be more greatly penalized by sex than men makes women unequal.

I don't like the motorcycle hypo because I think hypos don't really get you anywhere when it comes to abortion. The fact is that a baby is not the same thing as a concussion. But anyway, if the point of your hypo is that you would deny him medical treatment for his injuries because he needs to "accept the consequences" of his actions ... then I probably would agree that you hate motorcycle riders, or something like that. I agree that women who have sex have to logically face the possible consequence of getting pregnant, but not that that means they must also have the baby.

The point of my previous post (12:46) was, as other people have reasonably pointed out, not a sexist one, but reality. Men cannot get pregnant, and women can. If women do not want the foreseeable result of having sex (i.e. a living organism growing inside of their bodies), then they should not undertake the action that will bring it about.

Look, I enjoy sex as much as anyone, but I am also mature enough to realize that my actions have consequences. Fortunately we live in a time when we can undertake actions that can limit the likeliness of those consequences through various birth control devices. It seems that as contraception devices becomes more available, effective, and cheaper, the argument for abortion becomes weaker. We shouldn't have to kill a fetus in order for people to get off the hook for actions they chose to take.

And yes, I also believe that any man that doesn't want to bear the responsibility of having children should also keep his pants on, and that men that refuse to take responsibility for such actions are the scum of the earth.

"But anyway, if the point of your hypo is that you would deny him medical treatment for his injuries because he needs to "accept the consequences" of his actions ... then I probably would agree that you hate motorcycle riders, or something like that."

Admittedly, thats where the hypo breaks down, because, as you say, a concussion is not a baby. (by the way, I would not deny a pregnant woman medical treatment--she can have all the pre-natal care that she wants. The real question is whether abortion is truly "medical care" for pregnancy).

But in any event, the point was that there is nothing untoward in saying that people should bear responsibility for their actions, particularly when the outcome is a known consequence of that action. The fact that you hear this argument as "stop being such a slut" does not mean that it equates with that worldview.

Of course the "keep your pants on" argument places the burden disproportionately on women. BIOLOGY placed the burden of intercourse on women. No amount of government intervention will equalise the burden of intercourse. Even women who abort will face the consequences of that action - the emotional fallout, physical problems, possible infertility, etc. There is simply no way to ensure that the burden of sex is shared equally by men and women.

It is not the job of government to equalise biological inequalities, especially when such equalisation requires the murder of a child. We do not demand that men surgically weaken themselves to reduce sexual dimorphism; we don't require women to donate organs to men because women live longer and that would even things out.

It may not be the job of government to equalize burdens, but it certainly is discriminatory to PREVENT outside forces from equalizing the burdens. The distinction is illusory.

The question is not whether the government should prevent outside forces, but whether or not it should protect those forces. In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS declared abortion is a right protected by the federal government against states that find such an act morally repugnant. While it is true that we have the technology to somewhat equalize the burdens of sex, because those procedures involve ending a life, they are understandably controversial. The question then is should the people (i.e. states) make this difficult decision, or should the federal government protect a newly-created right? Roe PREVENTS the democracy envisioned in the Constitution.