Political Phriday: Abortion Debate After Court Decision - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Political Phriday: Abortion Debate After Court Decision

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby AcidRock23 » Sun Apr 22, 2007 6:29 pm

BritSox wrote:
AcidRock23 wrote:If the baby is missing chromosomes that lead to substantial defects, in some cases the procedure may actually be a bit of a blessing for everyone concerned. Of course, wealthy people can just go to civilized countries like Canada for procedures like this, the people w/o dough are the ones who's options are GONE, thanks to judicial intervention....


Suggesting that disabled people's lives are somehow worth less churns my stomach.


That was not my intention but there are some conditions, such as that I'd mentioned earlier where a kid is set to live a short life in a neonatal ICU, where the decision to bail on it might make sense, because the DOCTOR told the PARENTS that the kid had the same problem that killed their other kid in a manner that they OBSERVED and made an informed choice not to subject kid#2 to. There are not many of those type of cases but there are not very many of these procedures done either. There are some missing voices from the debate and I think that people might consider things a bit differently with some more accurate information.
AcidRock23
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterEagle Eye
Posts: 4170
Joined: 8 Mar 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Champaign, IL

Postby BritSox » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:00 am

AcidRock23 wrote:
BritSox wrote:
AcidRock23 wrote:If the baby is missing chromosomes that lead to substantial defects, in some cases the procedure may actually be a bit of a blessing for everyone concerned. Of course, wealthy people can just go to civilized countries like Canada for procedures like this, the people w/o dough are the ones who's options are GONE, thanks to judicial intervention....


Suggesting that disabled people's lives are somehow worth less churns my stomach.


That was not my intention but there are some conditions, such as that I'd mentioned earlier where a kid is set to live a short life in a neonatal ICU, where the decision to bail on it might make sense, because the DOCTOR told the PARENTS that the kid had the same problem that killed their other kid in a manner that they OBSERVED and made an informed choice not to subject kid#2 to. There are not many of those type of cases but there are not very many of these procedures done either. There are some missing voices from the debate and I think that people might consider things a bit differently with some more accurate information.


How short is 'short?' It's a slippery slope. How disabled would a child have to be, how short the life expectancy in order to judge it worthy of aborting? Allowing abortion for the kind of reaosn you've outlined would inevitably lead to decisions being made based on expected quality of life, that we have absolutely no business making.

Reminds me of something a wise doctor once said about Euthanasia:

We will start by doing it because the patient is in intolerable pain, and end up doing it because it is friday evening and we went to get home for the weekend.


Once you decide that choosing whether a human lives or dies based on their genes is acceptable, you open a real Pandora's box.
Image
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.

Postby mikhayl » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:40 am

Omaha Red Sox wrote:


You didn't really provide any of your own thoughts to quote, but you seem to misunderstand what is happening.

The SC ruling does not ban dilation and evacuation, it bans dilation and extraction, which is a completely different procedure.

Women are still free to have abortions during their third trimester, unfortunately the much safer dilation and extraction is not an option for them. They will have to go the dilation and evacuation route, which poses substantial medical risks for the mother.

Reading the majority opinion actually makes me want to puke. The Supreme Court did not rule on science, they did not rule on law; they seemingly ruled on long-held stereotypes and prejudices:

Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision . . . While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.


This translates to roughly: "Women make stupid decisions that they often regret. Let’s save them the heartache and make their decisions for them". They manner in which they reached their decision is shameful.
Let's go O's. Let's go Mets.
mikhayl
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 839
Joined: 9 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby BritSox » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:26 am

mikhayl wrote:Reading the majority opinion actually makes me want to puke. The Supreme Court did not rule on science, they did not rule on law; they seemingly ruled on long-held stereotypes and prejudices:

Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision . . . While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.


This translates to roughly: "Women make stupid decisions that they often regret. Let’s save them the heartache and make their decisions for them". They manner in which they reached their decision is shameful.


Garbage. They absolutely voted on law. There is nothing in the constitution to say women have the right to a particularly heinous form of late-term abortion. Therefore, it was entirely correct that the will of elected officials prevail.
Image
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.

Postby mikhayl » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:55 am

BritSox wrote:Garbage. They absolutely voted on law. There is nothing in the constitution to say women have the right to a particularly heinous form of late-term abortion. Therefore, it was entirely correct that the will of elected officials prevail.


You're right, but you're also wrong. From Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey

Overruling Roe's central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law. Where the Court acts to resolve the sort of unique, intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe, its decision has a dimension not present in normal cases and is entitled to rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. Moreover, the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision at a cost to themselves. A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law.


Exactly what in the majority opinion of Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood addresses the fundamental flaws in the reasoning of prior rulings such as PP of PA v. Casey?

I've found nothing. The ruling is political and a scar on the Supreme Court.
Let's go O's. Let's go Mets.
mikhayl
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 839
Joined: 9 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby Big Pimpin » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:06 pm

mikhayl wrote:The ruling is political and a scar on the Supreme Court.


I happen to think the original ruling in Roe v. Wade was a scar on the Supreme Court, so if this is the first step to overruling that, all the better.
Big Pimpin
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13716
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Building a metric. And being ignorable and stupid.

Postby mikhayl » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:22 pm

Big Pimpin wrote:
mikhayl wrote:The ruling is political and a scar on the Supreme Court.


I happen to think the original ruling in Roe v. Wade was a scar on the Supreme Court, so if this is the first step to overruling that, all the better.


In the interest of obejctivity, I'm trying not to think of this as a content issue but rather as a means issue. The Supreme Court did not adequately justify their decision in a manner that reconciles it with the prior 40 years of Roe related cases.

It's fine if the Court wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but based on the purpose and function of the Supreme Court (a perfectly independent arbitrator), they need to do it the right way.
Let's go O's. Let's go Mets.
mikhayl
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 839
Joined: 9 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Postby Big Pimpin » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:43 pm

mikhayl wrote:
Big Pimpin wrote:
mikhayl wrote:The ruling is political and a scar on the Supreme Court.


I happen to think the original ruling in Roe v. Wade was a scar on the Supreme Court, so if this is the first step to overruling that, all the better.


In the interest of obejctivity, I'm trying not to think of this as a content issue but rather as a means issue. The Supreme Court did not adequately justify their decision in a manner that reconciles it with the prior 40 years of Roe related cases.

It's fine if the Court wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but based on the purpose and function of the Supreme Court (a perfectly independent arbitrator), they need to do it the right way.


Fair enough.

But do you really and truly see the SC as "independent." I mean if that's the case, then why were the Bush years so "pivotal" to the Court? I recall it being a big issue since there were a few justices who nearing retirement age (and obviously they have been replaced). If the President (any President) is hand picking justices that mostly agree with his ideals, how can the Court ever be considered independent?

Seems to me that it's either right-leaning or left-leaning depending mostly on who appointed each justice. Maybe I'm crazy.
Big Pimpin
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterMatchup Meltdown ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 13716
(Past Year: 10)
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Building a metric. And being ignorable and stupid.

Postby RugbyD » Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:54 pm

Roe v. Wade seems to me like a poor job of legal interpretation. IMO the correct way to view the case is strictly as a private property rights issue, but the courts will never approach it that way b/c they fear the ramifications of acknowledging the true extent of private property rights.
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Postby mikhayl » Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:23 pm

Big Pimpin wrote:Fair enough.

But do you really and truly see the SC as "independent." I mean if that's the case, then why were the Bush years so "pivotal" to the Court? I recall it being a big issue since there were a few justices who nearing retirement age (and obviously they have been replaced). If the President (any President) is hand picking justices that mostly agree with his ideals, how can the Court ever be considered independent?

Seems to me that it's either right-leaning or left-leaning depending mostly on who appointed each justice. Maybe I'm crazy.


Obviously, the Justices are human and they are going to be affected by their own personal politics to a certain degree. But the court was set up in the constitution as an independent branch of government. Giving the Justices lifetime appointments is was done so that they do not have to worry about political reprisals-they can do their job free of consequences.

The Justices are all (maybe not Thomas) brilliant jurists and they have an understanding of their role in American government. I do have faith in their independence but every so often, they will disappoint. I think this is one of those cases where they bent to the political winds.
Let's go O's. Let's go Mets.
mikhayl
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 839
Joined: 9 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Brooklyn, NY

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact