<p>He died today. One of the most conservative voices in the Supreme Court. One of the dissenters of the landmark decision Roe v. Wade. However, surprisingly he does have his human elements. So who do you think is going to be the new Chief Justice? This is a pretty big decision.</p>
<p>I enjoyed how you distinguished between conservatism and humaneness. </p>
<p>I'm actually a little disturbed by his death. Now, there's going to be two nominations for President Bush, and I think they're going to have polarizing effects on the nation.</p>
<p>I agree. Bush is going to leave a lasting mark.</p>
<p>Anyway, this is the first thing I saw when I opened up my homepage.. my heart practically stopped. Sad. Cancer sucks. :(</p>
<p>I just cannot believe how all the planets are aligning for President Bush. Make no mistake, I do not have a personal agenda against Bush, but he has won an election during a controversial war, has the majority of Congress, and will now most likely have the majority of the Court. What the heck is going on?</p>
<p>Its a great thing for a Great president.</p>
<p>As long as we get 2 more Conservatives who will help to Ban Abortion.</p>
<p>Things in my eyes are looking up for America.</p>
<p>"Ban abortion" in America? I am not sure you understand how overturning Roe-V-Wade would affect abortion in America. If Roe-V-Wade were indeed overturned (highly unlikely given the implications), it would be down to the individual states to decide whether or not abortion would be legal in their individual states. The Northeast, West Coast, Illinois and Michigan will pretty much keep it legal, which means that Americans wanting an abortion will merely have to drive to one of those states to get it done. </p>
<p>At any rate, Scotch, I hope you are a female who has gone through a teenage pregnancy because if you aren't, you really aren't in a position to give your opinion on the subject. I am a very devout Catholic, but I do not have the nerve to pretend to have the wisdom to tell others how they should handle such a subject.</p>
<p>scotch i think was the one who said who shouldn't donate money/help the unfortunate ppl afflicted by hurricane katrina.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope you are a female who has gone through a teenage pregnancy because if you aren't, you really aren't in a position to give your opinion on the subject.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>LoL. First read the declaration of independence. Then, brush up on your natural rights philosophy. Finally, realize that the American government was designed to protect the natural rights "endowed by our creator" regardless of how "conveniant" it might be for fella's like yourself. Yup, that includes sucking the brains out of an innocent fetus/baby (still granted rights by a higher power than your government) because you simply "don't want it".</p>
<p>GeorgeS, can you prove that a fetus is alive? It is a debate that has been raging on for centuires. At this stage, from a purely biologogical and scientific point of view, a fetus is not considered "alive" until the 3rd month.</p>
<p>Fetus has a LARGE potential to become alive--if it already is not.</p>
<p>So do sperm - want to ban condoms? ;)</p>
<p>Is it worth my time to google links from right-wing organizations showing evidence that fetuses are in fact "scientifically alive"? Google it yourself, buddy, but I find the whole idea insulting to begin with.</p>
<p>I mean, look at this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"At this stage, from a purely biologogical and scientific point of view, a fetus is not considered "alive" until the 3rd month."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm glad some elitists in a lab get to dictate what is and isn't "alive" based on human stages of development. Remember, the same argument was used to promote slavery when scientists claimed that black people weren't as "developed" as white people and thus could have their rights taken away. This is why a notion of rights based on human development can/eventually will be used to destroy life in stages AFTER birth as well: if human development is a pre-requisite to our endowment of rights, what's to stop us from taking it further? Really, that 1 month year old baby doesn't even know it exists, so let's just put it out of its misery. </p>
<p>A HUMAN LIFE is present at the time the first two cells collide during conception, and a correlary INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE exists as well. This is why we have a government to begin with: to protect the natural rights of the people, given to us by a higher a Power than men in government. Bam, bummer and bingo...looks like we forgot our social contract.</p>
<p>Alexandre I fully understand that. Uf they could save 1 baby a year from being Murdered, then its ok with me.</p>
<p>Abortion is a shame. I hate it and dont think its right.</p>
<p>People should control themselves.</p>
<p>I feel the second that sperm hits the egg, its a New Life. It should be taken away.</p>
<p>can you prove that a fetus is alive?</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, there are only two definite biological points in the life of any human beingconception and death. Every change between these two points is simply a relative change, i.e. from embryo to fetus, child to adult etc.; that is, the way we view life. Only the beginning and end of life are absolute stages in human development. Before conception, the biologically living and functioning organism in question did not exist. After death, the same biologically living and functioning organism no longer exists; beyond this, it seems to be no more than a point of view.</p>
<p>"I believe life begins at conception."
--John Kerry (D-MA)--</p>
<p>Rest in peace, Justice Rehnquist...</p>
<p><em>sigh</em> I'm liberal, but I'm still upset Rehnquist died. Personally, I love the man for not letting go of his seat so Bush wouldn't nominate someone else...
Why is everything aligning up for him? The nation is going in a handbasket.
As for abortion - I believe it should be a choice. Yes, it is killing a life, but people, by nature, are sex driven idiots (bluntly). Regardless of abortion being legal or not, it will still happen, which people don't seem to realise. I, for one, would prefer it being done "safely" rather than someone on the street corner using a hanger.</p>
<p>If Roe were overturned and matters were up to the states, several states would ban abortion (i.e. Alabama has an abortion ban which would be enacted "immediately"). </p>
<p>Given the political climate of Congress, I would not say a federal abortion ban is too farfetched. Then, it wouldn't really matter too much what the states say as federal law usually trumps state law.</p>
<p>So, I am just hoping Bush replaces O'Connor with another justice who will vote pro-gay, pro-environment, and pro-choice.</p>
<p>In terms of Roe-V-Wade, I don't think anybody is going to touch that ruling with a 10 foot pole.</p>
<p>Ah, I hope! ;)</p>
<p>It would seem that John Roberts is the likely successor to Rehnquist. Although conservative, Roberts is very unlikely to touch Roe v Wade.</p>