A truly liberal view of abortion and gay marriage

[fe352v8]

I think in large part the rift facing the country is a result of Roe v. Wade, being decided by the Supreme Court.  By making abortion on demand a “constitutional right” instead of allowing for a national debate in which the states, would no doubt, have reached various conclusion, ranging from on demand to illegal, through the legislative and elective process; they in effect polarized the nation, to a degree not seen since the debate over slavery.

It took this country almost 100 years to end slavery and impart led to a civil war.  By allowing abortion without allowing a debate the Court, effectively silenced a large percentage of the population, opposed to abortion, thereby affectively making them feel alienated by their own government.  This in turn led to those in favor of abortion being perceived as elitists, for using the power of the Court and the government to eliminate debate and impose their will, without any debate, or consideration of those opposed.

I think the decision of whether to reproduce or not, and the purchase and use of various methods of birth control, including the morning after pill, to enable a woman to decide what the likely outcome of a sexual union may be, are within the purview of the Constitution, as regards privacy.

 Every state, which outlawed abortion, before Roe v. Wade allowed it for the purpose of safe guarding the motherÂ’s health.  However I do not think that the ConstitutionÂ’s rights to privacy extends to the termination of a pregnancy except when there is a genuine medical necessity to preserve the health of the mother.  Even in cases of rape and incest I do not feel the rights of privacy, implied in the Constitution, are applicable.

Personally I am in favor of a womanÂ’s right to choose, but beyond reasons of genuine medical necessity, this is a decision not for the Supreme Court, but for the state legislators and the electorate.  Unfortunately, because of Roe v. Wade, we are now in a situation in which the debate will have to take place in the context of an amendment to the Constitution.

If this amendment is written in such a way that “the un-born” is legally defined as a person under the law, this could very well lead to some strange consequences.  For example could a person be charge with assault if the mother smoked or if others in the household smoked because of itsÂ’ effect on the fetus?  Could the mother be held liable for an improper diet or lack of exercise?  As the state would have a vested interest in this “un-born” person could the mother be required to notify the state of a pregnancy so they could protect this “un-born” person?  What if there is a miscarriage or still birth, would the state have to treat it as a homicide until a cause of “death” is determined for the “un-born” person?  Hopefully any amendment proposed would only have the effect of returning to the states the determination and degree to which abortion would be allowed beyond preserving the mothers life.

Looking at those who decided Roe v. Wade is interesting in view of current the ramblings on activist judges

Blackmum, appointed by Nixon, wrote majority opinion
Brennan, appointed by Eisenhower, concurring
Powell, appointed by Nixon, concurring
T. Marshall, appointed by Johnson , concurring
Burger, appointed by Eisenhower, concurring
Douglas, appointed by Roosevelt, concurring
Stewart, appointed by Eisenhower, concurring
Rhenquist, appointed by Nixon, dissenting
B. White, appointed by Kennedy, dissenting

Perhaps we can learn from the divisions cause by the Court deciding an issue like abortion, and allow the debate over homosexual marriages to take place in the states where it belongs and not in the courts.  Personally I could care less who marrys who but it is an issue that should be decided by the people not the courts

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[Shorty]

That may, indeed be the "true liberal" view, but those who identfy themselves as "liberals" today prefer to set law by fiat (the courts) rather than by legislation (where they might lose).  :roll:

[cma g21]

[quote="fe352v8"...I think the decision of whether to reproduce or not, and the purchase and use of various methods of birth control, including the morning after pill, to enable a woman to decide what the likely outcome of a sexual union may be, are within the purview of the Constitution, as regards privacy...jon[/quote]

But isn't the "constitutional," right to privacy also a judicial imposistion? I can't seem to find it in the constitution (not that it shouldn't be there).

[FWiedner]

But isn't the "constitutional," right to privacy also a judicial imposistion? I can't seem to find it in the constitution (not that it shouldn't be there).

The Constitutional right to privacy is acknowledged within the text of the 4th Amendment.

Consider:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While the word "privacy" does not appear, who in honest evaluation could say that this is not the very definition of personal privacy?

 :?

[Shorty]

"unreaonable" ; "probable cause" ; Wow, who gets to decide?  Well, De Judge, dat's who.  Privacy is right up there with "interstate commerce" when it comes to what's constitutional and what's not.

[fe352v8]

The issues of privacy are general derived from Supreme Court ruling concerning s of the 3rd, 4th, and 9th, amendments.  Aside from that law which is written we also are the recipients of a common law system and itsÂ’ reliance on “Stare Decisis”, to stand by things decided.  The weakness of “Stare Decisis” is that there is a presumption that previous decisions were correct.  If a legal precedent is set upon a poorly reasoned conclusion, than subsequent rulings rely upon the same flawed logic.  If one reads the opinion, rendered in Roe v. Wade, itsÂ’ basis as an issue of privacy is, to be charitable, fragile.  The fact is, Wade made a poorly reasoned argument, and Roe prevailed.  Even when examined in the context of judicial activism, only two of the justices, Douglas and Marshall, in concurring where appointed by Presidents that one might call liberal, unless you feel that Eisenhower and Nixon were liberals.  Indeed one of the two dissenters, White, was a Kennedy appointee

As to the condoning of a practice or lifestyle, which if adopted universally would lead to the demise of a society being pathological, the logic is spurious concerning the issue of homosexuality.  It relies upon a premise that all humans are inclined to homosexual behavior, when in reality it is a relatively small number, as exemplified by the world ever increasing population.

I have yet to understand how the sexual preferences, between consenting individuals is a concern.  While the practice may violate ones religious doctrine, or just be repugnant to others, I fail to see that as relevant in that, the behavior impacts no one but those that engage in it.  How an amendment, banning homosexual marriage would protect traditional marriage is odder still, unless of course ones spouse has left a traditional marriage for homosexual a relationship.

As to rule by fiat, any Supreme Court decision or Constitutional provision can be nullified or repealed by amendment, if it is truly the will of the people.  There has been no meaningful attempt at overturning Roe v. Wade by this means.  One can draw from this, that the majority of people support, to some degree, the availability of abortion and those that are adamantly opposed realize this and thus rely upon executive order, and rulings by regulatory agencies as to the suitability of facilities in order to curtail abortion.  

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[fe352v8]

Recruitment?

What there is some aging and haggard old drag queen, an Auntie Sam, staring down from a poster and saying "I want you for the Homo Horde".

Gender issues and preferences arise in other species, some animals can even change gender.  In humans the discission to engaged in homosexual behavior may be a matter of choice, but the desire to, is most likely inborn, in some percentage of the population.  As for tolerant, why is it a concern if an activity only affects those engaged in it.

I find cars with stereos loud enough to vibrate my whole body more of an imposition, then the sight of a same sex couple.

life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[Shorty]

I believe that gays are born, not made.  They are what they are and can't be "recruited".  However, they are NOT normal.  They are miswired, a naturally occuring aberation.  For them to advocate being normal goes against nature and common sense.  
Words have meanings that have been set by common usage.  How else could we communicate?  The word "marriage" has always meant a union of man and woman.  Anything else is something different, call it what you may.  :roll:

[FWiedner]

I, on the other hand, believe that many "gays" are recruited.

How do you get a young person to jump into anything with both feet?  Tell them that it's wrong and not to do it.

Gays recruit young people and children through abuse, coercion, peer pressure and out-right rape.  Being "gay" is a deliberate choice to particpate in deviant behavior.

They approach innocents before they are secure in their sexual identities and use their curiosities and lust against them to convince them that deviant and un-nantural behavior is OK, and that anyone who disagrees or disapproves just doesn't like them because they're "different".

Perverts "recruit" young people who don't know any better, or middle aged wannabes who are tired of their current rut and want to dabble in something new, unusual, and nasty.

Once they become immersed in that culture of deviancy, it is very difficult to back out, again because of those issues of underdeveloped self-esteem, sexual confidence and identity, and social embarrassment.

I don't care what people do in their own bedooms, as long as it's between consenting adults.  I don't care who holds who's hand walking down the street.  I don't care where these perverts might fit into the species propogation picture, or that they might "die-out".  I do care that children are physically and mentally victimized, abused and raped by perverts, including "gay" perverts.


 :evil:

[fe352v8]

There is no evidence that a homosexual is more likely to engage in a sexual relationship with a child than a heterosexual.  Quite frankly the research in this area is incomplete.  However pedophilia, is an issue quite apart from homosexuality.  

life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[FWiedner]

Homosexuals,  pedophiles, rapists, necrophiles, self-mutilators and bestialists all fall into the same category of sex-freak.  I'm sure that there are more examples of the type that I simply don't have the imagination to conjure up.

These are people so poorly adjusted that they feel a need to abuse themselves, other humans or living creatures with consent or by force, or even inanimate objects in order to acheive self gratification or control.  They acheive release by harming someone or something else, and by engaging in un-natural and or morally deviant  sex-acts.

They are all perverts whose goal is just to get their rocks off by violating or defiling someone or something else.

In the case of homosexuals, they not only want to be free to practice their perversion, they want to force the world at-large to watch and then clap them on the back for doing it.

.

[magooch]

I just wish queers would be called what they are.  I guess they can be gay queers, or sad queers, but "gay" just doesn't do it.  Hopefully they won't be able to change the meaning of "marriage" also.

[fe352v8]

I think that is exactly the point, those whose sexual orientation is towards members of their own gender, homosexuals, would, it appears, wish to be thought of as human beings and citizens.  Having the same rights and responsibilities as people whose sexual orientation is heterosexual.

I do not feel that a homosexual couple should be treated legally, any differently than an unmarried heterosexual couple.  Marriage, in a legal sense, merely forms an entity recognized by the state, very similar to a corporation.  Spouses are like partners in a limited liability corporation.  To be sure there are some niceties that go with traditional marriage, almost unlimited power of attorney, and tax treatment, employer and government benefits for a spouse, property rights, inheritance issues, and asset protection in the event of dissolution.

I see no logical reason why a legally recognized civil contract between people should be based on their sexual orientation.  Should it be called marriage; no, marriage has long been held to be a union of a man and a woman with a religious auspice.  If it is the desire of homosexual couples to be viewed as married in the context of social mores, no law can or will do that.  However if they merely wish a legally recognized contract to govern their relationship with one another, and the state, I see no reason to bar either them or heterosexuals from doing so.  

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[fe352v8]

I do not think one can accurately presume the motivation of a couple, either heterosexual or homosexual, wanting a legally recognized union.  In adoption the priority should be, the best interests of the child.  With the social mores, regarding homosexuality, I think all other factors being equal a child interests are better served in a heterosexual setting.  There are few things to stop a woman from being inseminated either artificially or otherwise if she so chooses.

As to fraud, or multiple parties to the union, the laws should apply as they do to heterosexuals.  I do not advocate special treatment; just do not understand different treatment under the law.

If the implication is that homosexuals desire children for sexual purposes, I think that one would be hard pressed to show this empirically.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[Leverdude]

I can presume that 2 men having sex arent doing it to make a family.

Far as I'm concerened they can do whatever pleases them. They have no right to expect me not to call a queer a queer tho, anymore than I have a right to expect them not to call a husband & wife a husband & wife.

These benefits you speak of are there to make it easier for married couples to raise a family. Its not required that you have kids but the perks get better if you do.

2 men cant have kids so they dont need these benefits.

There should be an incentive to get married & have kids, its good for society & generally fosters responsibility. Not always for sure but by & large people try & do the best they can for their kids.

Any 2 adults can have documents drawn up that make them partners or give each other powers of attorney, they dont need to get married.

Its just another case of a bunch of deviants whining because they aint normal & no one wants to let them make believe they are.

[FWiedner]

Roe v Wade made it OK in the public mind to murder children, aka children don't matter.

When the door is opened to murder the most innocent for reasons having mostly to do with convienience, should there be any moral guidelines embedded within the law at all?

Since children don't matter, one must assume that the matrimonial situations which would be designed to create those children don't matter any more than the children themselves, thus a marriage partnership that cannot and will never have the potential to produce natural children is allowed, because it doesn't really matter.  I say marriage partnership rather than matrimony, because matrimony implies that the union is designed to accommodate motherhood, resulting in children.

A homosexual couple, wherein one of the partners enlists a surrogate of one sex or the other to conceive a child naturally, is one situation, as a parent should never be deprived of their natural child unless there is undeniable evidence of abuse, but homosexual couples should never be allowed to adopt.

It is a given that over the course of the adpoted child's life, the child would be a captive witness to the deliberate and deviant behavior of the adopting homosexuals, with the end being that such behavior would be commonplace and thus acceptable in the child's mind, and rest assured that a homosexual parent would do nothing to place other than that into the child's mind.

Aka, another "recruit".

If we, as a society are willing to allow children to be taught that unproductive homosexual marital unions are to be tolerated on the basis that it's just an "alternative" lifestyle, rather than the exercise in overt deviancy that it truly is, that a marriage deliberately designed to exclude children is a preferred result, then maybe we are doing them a favor by driving scissors into their heads before they leave the womb.

Maybe that's the real goal of same-sex marriage.

 :shock:

[fe352v8]

Sounds more like a, I do not mind those people, just do not want my sister marrying one, kind of explanation.

Since the legalization of abortion, it is now preformed by real doctors using real surgical instruments, and is safer than carrying to term.

I respect a persons with deep seated opposition to these issues, but it seems they almost always base it on emotion instead of rationality.

life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[FWiedner]

...he says as he looks in the mirror.

Doctors were always available to good girls.

I do mind.  I don't want my sister marrying, or even associating with them.  Nor do I want my other relatives, friends, or associates.  Homosexuals and all of their similar sex-freak buddies are an amoral and perverse genre of human.

I do not wish these deviants any ill, but I believe that people should be able to choose with whom they associate based on their own decisions rather than be forced to swallow which ever flavor of shameless pervert or freak the government decides to protect as a part of it's scheme to weaken and destroy our society.

 :?

[fe352v8]

Not special protection, equal protection.  Recognizing a civil contract between homosexuals would not require anyone to become a homosexual.  As to weakening society, take a good look at the debt we are going to be leaving our childrens childrens children.

life is no joke but funny things happen

jo

[powderman]

Queers and lezzies should never, NEVER, be allowed around children, let alone to raise them. Some of the libby schools are even trying to teach kids that these perverted scum are normal. Well, they aren't. They are abominations in Gods eyes, I didn't say it, God did. They should be found and moved to 2 islands. One for the queers, one for the lezzies. They couldn't propagate, would eventually die out.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple. I'm sick of hearing about a womans right to choose, what horse crap. Choose WHAT? To kill her child? The choices are simple. Life, or death, there is no in between. And another thing, doctors save lives, they don't kill. Butchers kill, not drs. I pity those would have been mothers, and the butchers that killed the babies for $$$$ on judgement day. I can see it now.Uhhhhhh, errrrr,you mean that was a baby I killed? DUUUUUHHHHH. POWDERMAN.  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x  :x

[fe352v8]

The God or Gods of which religion.  There are over 33,000 Christian denominations alone.  Not to mention variations of Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, Muslims, not mention agnostic and atheists.  Thats the nice thing about this country, it recognize that people should be free to practice a religion but not to impose it.  History is replete with examples of people acting in accordance with some God's will.  The crusades, the inquisition, witch trials.  There seems no end to the barbarity and hate one can justify when one can attribute their righteousness to a God.

life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[FWiedner]

As to weakening society, take a good look at the debt we are going to be leaving our childrens childrens children

Money isn't everything.  Debt is just debt.  

The fact that our society is so dependent on such a transient and altogether disposable commodity simply speaks to it's decline .

Money can't buy a moral compass.

.

[fe352v8]

True enough, money is not everything, but debt has consequences.  What is the compass reading for the policies that have the infant mortality rate, deaths per 1000 live births, in the US at 6.63, this is higher than CubaÂ’s at 6.45, or Slovenia at 4.5, and just ahead of Croatia at 6.96.

Where does the compass point for the almost 36 million Americans living in poverty, and the highest number of children living in poverty seen in a decade, or the continued decrease in income for the poorest Americans. (figures from US Census Bureau)

Tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans, or an increasing numbers of children in poverty; gee whatÂ’s the moral thing to do?

I know, keep the tax breaks, ignore the kids, they do not vote, and if they did it would be for the wrong party anyhow.   Borrow whatever money is needed to keep up some services and helps my kind of people, and let the jerks that work for a living, kids pay off the debt.  Besides if anyone questions me IÂ’ll just, praise the Lord and distract them with gay marriage and abortion.  Yup, my compass is pointing at moral, dead on it.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[williamlayton]

Hummmm.
Homosexuality is a choice made.
Granting equal rights to same sex marriage is "special treatment" it makes the recognition of this union special, just as a marriage between a man and a woman is "special", different than going steady, or living together.
Recognizing same sex marriage as other than illicit is as recognizing that abortion is other than illicit.
At some point sin must used as a criteria to define right and wrong otherwise there is no right or wrong and we all recognize there is right and wrong, right.
Blessings

[FWiedner]

True enough, money is not everything, but debt has consequences.  What is the compass reading for the policies that have the infant mortality rate, deaths per 1000 live births, in the US at 6.63, this is higher than CubaÂ’s at 6.45, or Slovenia at 4.5, and just ahead of Croatia at 6.96.

Where does the compass point for the almost 36 million Americans living in poverty, and the highest number of children living in poverty seen in a decade, or the continued decrease in income for the poorest Americans. (figures from US Census Bureau)

Tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans, or an increasing numbers of children in poverty; gee whatÂ’s the moral thing to do?

I know, keep the tax breaks, ignore the kids, they do not vote, and if they did it would be for the wrong party anyhow.   Borrow whatever money is needed to keep up some services and helps my kind of people, and let the jerks that work for a living, kids pay off the debt.  Besides if anyone questions me IÂ’ll just, praise the Lord and distract them with gay marriage and abortion.  Yup, my compass is pointing at moral, dead on it.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

Neither infant mortality nor poverty are either the fault nor the responsibility of society at large.

The fact that babies die is just a fact, sh*t happens.  People live in poverty for a variety of reasons, mostly having to do with their own lack of ability or desire to become educated and produce a product that society values.  Society does not own anyone a life or a living.

Some people live in relative comfort because they work at it.  Some people live in poverty because they don't.  It has always been.

Neither dead babies nor empty pockets is sufficient justification for abandoning basic decency.

I wonder what the infant mortality rate would calculate to be if elective abortion were included in the toll of infants lost?

.

[Leverdude]

You hit it right on the nose Fe.

I dont care what they do to each other but wont tolerate them around my family period.  Thats my right.

Theres no question its a learned behavior & its not one I want my kids exposed to.

I dont think admitted homo's should be allowed around children at all unless the parents ok it. No teachers, no bus drivers, no camp counselors, no boy scout masters. No one should be placed in the position of a role model if theyre a sexual deviant.

[magooch]

No matter how you slice it, dumbing down deviancy is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[fe352v8]

Societies whose governments enact policies leading to the continuing concentration of wealth, should expect a decline of morality, look at Rome or the French revolution

It is my contention that issues of morality are issues of concern to our leaders only to the degree that they can maintain the publics focus on them, while fulfilling their own agenda, self-enrichment.  This agenda crosses party lines and ideology.  For the sake of money and power they will exploit either side of an issue, with no concern to the solving of a problem
 
I think it is a travesty that the richest country on earth has around 36 million or 12 percent of itsÂ’ citizens living in poverty.  It is a travesty that almost 700,000 abortions are performed annually.  So what are the moral visionaries doing about it?   Spending 300 billion, so far, for democracy in the desert and enacting tax laws for their own benefit.

If you divide 300 billion by the 36 million Americans living in poverty each would be at almost the income that is the poverty line of $8898 for a household of 1, in the 48 contiguous states.  Or you could provide health insurance for the over 40 million Americans who do not have it.  Or you could fund education.

Just maybe spending at home might make a world in which abortion is seen as a last resort instead of a choice.  Abortions performed, reached a peak in 1990 and then decline through the remainder of the decade.  Odd that an “immoral administration” over saw the largest and longest lasting decline in the numbers of abortions performed, maybe it had something to do with the choices made in fiscal policy.

Morality involves choices, sometimes one must sacrifice for the sake of morality, strange how those leaders claiming a moral superiority, only require others to sacrifice.  It seems like the political hymn of today is, Onward Christian Soldiers (while we raid the collection box).

Has the elimination of double taxation on dividends helped you?  

According to the Federal Reserve half of all families own shares of stocks or mutual funds in an IRA or 401K, of these only 19.2% held stocks outside of these and only 16.5% held mutual funds outside of these retirement accounts.

The richest 1% of families hold 53.2% of all shares held directly by individuals outside of retirement accounts.  In fact, the richest 10% of families hold over 90% of all shares held directly by individuals outside of retirement accounts.

You might want to notice that your withdrawals, from your retirement account are taxed as normal income even though dividends make up a portion of the money in that retirement account.  While the rich, whose income is largely paid in the form of a dividend will be taxed at half the normal rate.

Perhaps we should ask if the people selling these “faith and values” burritos, the flag wrapped around a Bible, ever tried one, from my perspective their just eating our lunch.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon

[williamlayton]

Well I will agree and disagree. You are very correct about the rich, and since the last time I checked I was not amongst those folks.
That has nothing to do with my statement and it is incorrect to try and lump rich and spiritual together, that is a hard fit, not impossible but difficult. Heck it is hard enough to be poor and spiritual.
Blessings

[FWiedner]

...And that has what to do with the cost of rice in China...?

Are you claiming that the rich undertaxed people are at the root of abortion and homosexual marriages, or that they are the people most likely do participate in one or the other...?

 :lol: