Skip to main content

View Diary: South Dakota Moves To Ban "ALL" Abortions (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Which abortions would you criminalize? (none)
    And did you vote for John Kerry?
    •  I would not (none)
      "criminalize" abortions.  I would rather follow the German model.  Abortions would be available up until about 12 weeks provided that there is truly informed consent.  I would support parental notification and ideally spousal notification (with exception in cases of potential abuse).  I would oppose government funding of abortion.  I would oppose D&X and all late-term abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother or prevent grievous bodily harm to her.  
      •  Doubletalk (none)
        How do you make abortions "unavailable" without criminalizing them?

        Did you vote for John Kerry?

        •  Call it what you like (none)
          You like "criminalize," fine.  

          (Although there are other ways of doing it.  E.g., refusing to renew licenses of doctors who perform abortions outside of legal parameters).

          •  And when they perform abortions (none)
            without a license, they go to...jail, right?

            You are trying to sugercoat this whole thing.

            More Republican steath strategy.  Bullshit!  Foolsgold.

            You just waive a magic wand, and aboriton goes away without jail, subpoenas or the overeager Kansas attorney general who is investingating women's pregnancies?

            Did you support the Schiavo legislation?

             

            •  No I did not support Schiavo (none)
              legislation.

              Fine, let's stop sugarcoating.  yes, I am in favor of limitation on abortion (as described above).  I am in favor of criminal penalties for the abortions performed beyond those limitations.  However, I support legalized abortion in the early stages of pregnancy as a policy matter, though I am personally opposed to it.

              •  Did you vote for John Kerry? t (none)
                The question has been put several times now. If you are a Republican, don't you think you should tell us?
                •  And i answered that (none)
                  I view the question as irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  You can choose to debate on merits or not at all.  Who I voted for, or didn't vote for is irrelevant to the discussion of Roe or Casey.
                  •  Yes, it is absolultely relevent (none)
                    This is described as a Democratic blog.  If you are not here to help Demcorats, then that puts all your assertions in a certain light.  No one saying yo can't comment.  For many, they may assume that you are trying to be part of a big tent.  I think you are trying to hurt us.

                    If you are trying to be coy and won't tell us your true colors, then all of your assertions come into doubt.  Not all of us have the ability to track down and verify all your talking points.  This is especially true when you are holding yourself out as an expert witness on constitutional law matters.

                    Your intentions go to trust--and how much we can trust what you are representing.  We have to go on trust to a certain extent.  We can't, or most of us can't, track down every single point you make.  That you refuse to drop your mask shows that you know this too.

                    Bias, counselor.  You know it.  You want to preserve your ability to masqurade as a Democrat.    

                    •  I don't think I am trying to (none)
                      help or hurt anyone.  if you notice I do not provide political advice or strategy suggestions.

                      I am expounding on my views of constitutional law.  If you track back through my posts, you will see that they are by and large limited to that area (with some exceptions).  

                      Because constitutional law is separate and apart from politics, it makes no difference who you voted for.  (As a reminder, Earl Warren was a Republican while Frankfurter and White were Democrats).  Feel free to disagree with my conlaw analysis, but keep it apart from politics as they are really not one and the same.

                      •  Separate and apart from politics? (none)
                        Bullshit.

                        That's the phoney line that Federalist conservatives like you use to impose your "objective" values on everyone else.

                        Tell me there is no "value" decision in what constitutes a "reasonable" search or seizure, or "cruel or unusual" punishment.

                      •  More bullshit (none)
                        You are here trying to influence the debate but unwillng to come clean on your true loyalties.

                        You are trying to sell people here on the foolsgold of the Republican stealth/incrementalist strategy.  By not telling us you are a Republican partisan, you being deceptive.

                        What is it with conservatives and secrecy?  Just tell us so we can have an honest debate.  An honest debate requires that everyone's biases be put on the table.  You are not willing to do this completely.

                        •  And I am telling you that (none)
                          my biases is only to the originalist interpretation.  I do not care about the party affiliation of a person who engages in proper constitutional interpretation.  So give it a rest
                        •  Nonsense (none)
                          We can have an honest debate about the meaning of the Constitution without reference to party labels.  (Earl Warren was a Republican as is Justice Stevens.  Justices Frankfurter and White were Democrats).

                          I am not trying to sell a strategy.  I am trying to "sell" the proper ConLaw interpretation.

      •  YOU'D FOLLOW THE GERMAN MODEL? (none)
        But you claim to be an "originalist"?

        Methinks you don't know what you're talking about.

        •  My policy preferences (none)
          i.e., following the German model have nothing to do whatever with my view of the Constitution.  I believe the Constitution does not restrict abortion legislation, i.e. it permist complete bans and legislation allowing abortion up until the moment of birth, and everything in between.  Given that latitude, we can choose policy that best suits our moral taste.  I think German model suits my moral tastes the best.
          •  Suits "your" moral taste?! (none)
            You know the answer: If you don't like  abortion, then don't have one.

            And you are king for everyone else....

            You are really trying to help us Democrats, huh?

            •  That's a ridiculous statement (none)
              that's like saying, if you like minimum wage, you pay it, and leave everyone else alone.  All of the policy decisions are undelied in one way or another by moral choices.  

              The starkest example is this.  We think it is immoral to kill, but are willing to make exceptions for killings in time of war or in self-defense.  But not in all self-defense, only if the attacker is causing you/threatening severe bodily harm and not just trying to slap your face.  The end result is the same, the person is dead.  But we attach different moral judgment to the way he ended up dead.  That is a policy choice we made underlied by moral judgments.

              So too with for example child labor.  We have come to the conclusion that it is immoral to force yound children to work instead of going to school.

              So too with selling kidneys for profit.  We have come to the conclusion that it is immoral to give organs to those able to pay the most as opposed to those in most need.

              Abortion is not exempt from moral calculus.

              •  Yes, I understand (none)
                you and your fellow conservatives believe that all the world should dance to the tune of your "moral" calculus.

                This is simple.  All laws should be moral.  Not all moral precepts should be enacted into law.  Adultery is a moral issue and should not be a legal one--unless you are like your compadre Thomas at RedState.

                Abortion involves the body of a woman--she gets to make the call on when she has a child.  Done.  Finito.  Over.

                 

                •  You obviously don't get it (none)
                  First of all, the world does revolve about society's moral calculus.

                  And adultery has always been a legal issue.  And it has to be.  At the very least because it is grounds for divorce (a legal procedure).

                  Second of all, abortion involves more than just the body of the woman.  For starters it also involves the guy whose child it is.  It also happens to invlove the unborn child.  Now you may not believe that he is "alive" or if alive deserving of protection.  I disagree with you there to some extent.  So, i think that abortion calculus is more than just "body of a woman."

                  And btw, selling kidneys also just involves the "body of a the (wo)man."  But we don't let that happen either.

                  •  But we allow voluntary donation (none)
                     As long as the doctor isn't paying for the fetus...

                    I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting. But I feel better having screamed. Don't you?

                    by Anderson Republican on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:59:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Another one!!! (none)
                    Omigod!

                    So, adultery is a "legal issue?"  Oh my!  I totally disagree, and don't know if my jaw will drop any further.  

                    No, adultery, at least in most states is not needed to get a divorce.  I think Reagan signed the no-fault divorce statute here in California.  You going against Reagan?  Didn't think so.

                    And, heh, just a word of friendly advice, if you ever work for a large firm, don't go around talking about how adultery is a "legal issue."  It will make the partners very nervous and think you are some kind of informant/revival preacher.

                    •  I didn't say adultery is NEEDED (none)
                      for divorce, but is GROUNDS for it.

                      In NY, where we do not have a no-fault divorce, adultery is one of the possible grounds.

                      And my partners dont care about my views of law and morality as long as I do good work here.  But at the end of the day, adultery is a legal issue.  Most states prohibit it (though obviously don't enforce it).  And there may even be civil consequences for adulterous behavior (e.g., suits for alienation of affection).

                      •  Alienation of Affection? (none)
                        Oh my!  You dusting off a lot of old stuff here.

                        That tort has not been viable for decades--except in the State of Utah, as far as I know.  You wanna go down the hall and tell your partners you have got this hot new case where you are going to allege alienation of affection? Women are just chattel to be stolen?

                        Yup, New York still has that antiquated system.  Too bad.

                        Can we talk about Lawrence?  You don't like that one either, do you?  Texas should be allowed to put gays in jail, right?

                        Get back to work my friend.  I can play around--I am not sure you can--those billable hours just screaming at ya.  

                        •  Lawrence is just as bad as Roe (none)
                          while i do not support anti-sodomy laws, I do not think they are unconstitutional.

                          And why is it only women?  As far as I remember, alienation of affection could be brought by both men and women.  I can play around, we don't have minimum billables.

                          •  The tort of (none)
                            alienation of affection was traditionally the ammo a wife would use to scare away the homewrecker.  It hasn't been tried in today's world of equality....Cite me one recent case where the tort survived demurrer or a 12(b)6) motion.

                            Oh my, so busy legislating the sexual morality of your fellow man.

                          •  Umm, lookie here (none)
                            http://www.rosen.com/...

                            That website list a number of recent cases.

                            And seems to me that some other states Hawaii, New Hampshire, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah also retain this tort.

                            Oh, and if you don't legislate sexual morality I guess polygamy laws and incest laws are unconstitutional?  Good to know.

                          •  But it is a minority view (none)
                            The article you cite to states:

                            As of July 2003, 43 states and the District of Columbia had abolished the cause of action for alienation of affection.

                            The trend is going the other way.  But, Mr. Morality, sticking your nose in other people's business won't get you very far.  What adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is no one else's business.  If you want to start some type of morality crusade, be my guest.

                            My values are different than yours.  I value freedom and liberty.  

                             

                          •  If your values are different (none)
                            express them at the ballot box.  I will see how many votes you get when you start advocating for legalization of incest and polygamy.
                          •  Strawman (none)
                            No one is talking about incest or polygamy.

                            Minority rights should not be subject to the ballot box--that is why they are "minority" rights.

                            Go put gays and adulterers in jail and see how many votes you get--although the idea is so absurd, it's hard to contemplate

                            Bottom line:  I detest what you stand for.  I live in country that is not your country.  You want to hijack my country.  I will fight you.  Others will fight you.   And God help you if you are ever remotely successful in trying to bring your version of sexual morality into our lives.

                          •  Why is that a strawman? (none)
                            You said what people do in their bedrooms cannot be legislated.  Icest generaly occurs in people's bedrooms.  So does polygamy.  So we can't legislate those?  And if we can what makes that moral judgement any different from anyother moral judgment regarding sexuality?

                            Minority rights in the end are always subject to the ballot box.  Witness the reaction across the country to the Goodridge decision.

                            I do not want to put gays or adulterers in jail.  Though I think that the party committing adultery should pay more/get les during the divorce proceedings.  If for nothing else then for violating a contract freely entered into.  But just because I think that laws banning sodomy are ass-backwars does not make them unconstitutional.

                            And like it or not sexual morality will always be legislated.  Live with it. Some states will set age of consent at 14, other at 16, yet others at 18, and yet others will use a sliding scale.  These are strictly moral judgment calls.  And the constitution says nothing about these calls.  They are stritly for the people to make.

                            And it is you who wants to hijack the country absent any popular consent.  It is the "living constitutionalists" who feel that the judiciary can abolish death penalty despite the fact that it is explicitly provided for in the Constitution.  It is the "living constitutionalists" who want to remove "under G-d" from teh pledge despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans support keping it there.  It is the "living constitutionalists" who want to mandate government fnding of abortion despite public's opposition and despite the fact that the Constitution does not require the government to fund anything at all, much less a specific program.

                          •  Religious motivation? (none)
                            It appears you are an Orthodox Jew.  True?

                            You seem upset at the issues re the Pledge, various issues re abortion and the like.  You appear very concerned with outcomes, no?  

                            I have yet to meet an "Originalist" who was not motivated by their religious beliefs to (in my opinion) impose their beliefs on others.  Or stated another way, I have yet to meet an Originalist who was not intensely religious.  If the Originalist position was an "objective" position, then why do all these Originalists devolve into religious issues?  An Originalist who was an atheist would be a refreshing change.

                            It is all about religious zealots finding a rationale to impose their beliefs on others, and Originalism fits the bill.

                            You misstate the formulation re sex, and it is correctly stated thusly:  What consenting ADULTS do in the privacy of their bedroom is no one else's business.  Look above and you will see that I talked about ADULTS.  

                            Most cases where incest or polygamy is prosecuted involve children.  In fact, I know of no effort to prosecute such cases where no child is involved.  

                            Live your life the way you want, and I will do likewise.

                          •  Nope (none)
                            I am a Jew, but not Orthodox.  I am religious but not "intensly."  But I fail to see what that has to do with anything.  My motivation is limited powers of the unelected judiciary and expanded powers of the people.  Not my religion.  The Pledge issue was brought up is not because my religious beliefs require me to say it (indeed if I were an Orthodox Jew, saying God's name in vain (i.e. other than prayer) would be sinful).  It was brough up because  the 9th Circuit ruled the Pledge unconstitutional despite the fact that Washington added words "so help me God" to the Oath, despite the fact that Congress opens each day with a prayer, despite the fact that courts open with "God save this honorable court," etc.  There is just no legal basis for declaring the Pledge as is unconstitutional.  So, I am not concerned with outcome.  I am concerned with getting there.  If there is an argument that the COnstitution as originally understood requires a result that is politically unpalatable to me, so be it.  You apparently make no such distinction.  You seem to think that Constitution can be molded and remolded to achieve that which you could not achieve at the ballot box.

                            Second, incest is or can be practiced by adults as well as children.  Recently there was a case of Michigan (I believe) couple who were "married" but who also were brother and sister.  They were prosecuted.  They were adults.  Utah polygamists are all adults.  So, the whole "it's children" argument is nonsense.

                          •  Correction (none)
                            It was a Wisconsin couple and they were sentenced to 8 and 5 years respectively and their conviction was upheld on June 22, 2005 by the 7th Circuit.

                            http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/...

                            So your "it's just children" argument is nonsense

                          •  G-d? (none)
                            You seem VERY concerend about a lawsuit that was defeated. "Under God" remains in the pledge and never ceased being part of the pledge as recited in school.  I know of no elected Democrat who wanted the pledge changed.  Micheal Newdow, the plaintiff who brought the suit, appears to be one of the few who was really concerned about this.  Yet, you and those concerned about religious issues, go on and on about a lawsuit you WON.

                            There is a perfectly logical basis for ruling "under god" in the Pledge unconstitutional:  It discriminates against Hindus and Buddhists because they do not believe in God. Very simple.  Government cannot pick winners and losers in the religious sphere.  

                            Of course, any argument can be taken to its logical extreme, which is what happened here.  No one really cares about this issue except the religious loons who desperately crave the government's seal of approval.  And, as a Liberal, I am able to see issues in other terms than  the binary, black-or-white world of absolutism inhabited by most conservatives.  For me, no harm, no foul.  The Pledge is virtually meaningless, or perhaps better stated, quite vanilla--so the government's preference for Western religion over Eastern religion is also virtually meaningless.

                            As to your assertion that you are not particulary religious, I don't believe you.  You have yet to admit you voted for George Bush, and I had to drag it out of you that you were advocating criminal penalties for abortion.  Becasue you are less than candid in expressing your views, I assume you are similarly trying to downplay your religious views.  Your obsession with the Pledge, as well as other telltale tracks, betray you.  

                            As to the incest prosecution among adults, I assume that the example you cite is the exception rather than the rule.  If prosecutors start investigating any seemingly overly-friendly or affectionate relationships betweeen adult fathers and daughters or siblings, then you would have TROUBLE on your hands.

                            As to the prosecution of the Utah polygamists, no, there were not all adults.  With respect to recent prosecutions, you may be thinking of Tom Green, one of the few people prosecuted for polygamy in recent memory.  He "married" underage girls.  

                            During a weeklong trial, prosecutor David Leavitt attempted to portray Green as a man driven by an outsized ego to marry teen-age girls.

                            Utah by and large looks the other way when it comes to polygamy.  The only reason they decided to prosecute Green was the involvement of young girls and the desire to spruce up Utah's image.  

                          •  Well, (none)
                            First of all, get your facts straight.  "we" (whatever that means) didn't "win" the Newdow lawsuit.  It was dismissed on a technicality.  If you havd been following the news, since then a District judge in California again ruled for Newdow in a new case that did not have same procedural stumbling block.

                            You can believe me or not, that's your choice.  You are obviously misrepresenting my views on abortion.  Everyone (or almost everyone) is in favor of criminal penalties for certain types of abortion.  Show me a large group of people who favor abortion literally up until the moment of birth?!  And if you think that those are not OK, then I guess you too want to "criminalize" abortions, huh?  I am in favor of legalized early abortions but with some restrictions.  I think majority of American public agrees with me.

                            As for the Wisconsin case, of course it is an exception.  Duh!  Brothers and sisters having sex is always an exception.  I don't know of many siblings who want to fuck each other.  Do you?  And do you REALLY think teh public would be up in arms if the prosecutors brought cases against father-daughter (adult) sexual relationships?!  You must be living in a loony toons world.  The public would be lining up to stone the father (and possibly the daughter).

                            Finally, in Utah, marrying "teenage girls" per se is not illegal, because the age of consent for marriage in Utah is 15 provided there is parental consent and court approval or 16 with parental consent only.  And the fact that Utah and other states "look the other way" means only that they have bigger fish to fry, not that these laws are unconstitutional or do not enjoy public's support.

        •  You forgot to ask WHICH German model (none)

          I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting. But I feel better having screamed. Don't you?

          by Anderson Republican on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:57:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site