<p>interesteddad, what do you think?</p>
<p>I think Arlen Specter is one of the better, and more respected, US Senators. Bush needs him to "sell" an easy confirmation for a Supreme Court nominee.</p>
<p>As far as targeting him, the right-wing fringe is probably barking up the wrong tree. First, he just won re-election and is nearing retirement age. </p>
<p>My best guess is that Bush will try to find a conservative judge who is above reproach for his (or her) legal mind and track record on the bench.</p>
<p>"the right-wing fringe"</p>
<p>Come on. It's hardly the fringe that is pro life. The Republicans have to fight for pro life judges, and Specter is going to completely act against that. That's bad news.</p>
<p>Never in a million years will the conservative republicans allow it to be overturned. If they did, who would be their base? They would be shooting themselves in the foot. Better to keep stringing them along...</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Come on. It's hardly the fringe that is pro life. </p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>No, it's not just the right-wing fringe that holds anti-abortion views. However, it is the right wing fringe that pushes the issue to the forefront (litmus tests, etc.) </p>
<p>There's a difference between being generally supportive of an issue position and being a fervent advocancy group.</p>
<p>For example, I'm generally supportive of gay civil unions or gay marriage, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to march in the streets or bombard my congressmen with letter writing campaigns.</p>
<p>Many people think that Roe V. Wade is what legalizes abortion: it ISN'T! If Roe V. Wade is reversed, it simply sends the decision back to the states- which, can only deepen the divide between the red and blue states: the blue states protect a woman's right to choose, the red states do not. Personally, I am a pro-Choicer.I choose to put the values of American democracy (choice, freedom, and privacy) above the values of religion. I choose to respect our constitutionally guaranteed rights. I do not expect to change anybody's views on the issue of abortion, these are my opinions and my opinions only. I simply do not have the authority to take away another's right to choose.</p>
<p>Will Roe V. Wade be overturned? Possibly. But, as I said, it sends it back to the states...so in a sense, if Bush's judges choose to embark on the task of furthering the divide in America, then overturn the damn thing, which, most likely, they will.</p>
<p>"I choose to put the values of American democracy (choice, freedom, and privacy) above the values of religion." </p>
<p>Where do you think the laws against murder and adultery came from? Oh my, certainly not from the Ten Commandments! No one can dare argue that the Constitution is, in fact, not based on principles of Christianity.</p>
<p>uc_benz, I will dare to argue that on a technicality. Christianity did not materialize from nothing (well...); it did not invent that murder and adultery are bad things. Those principles came from somewhere else (like, the first written laws, which precede Christianity by any number of years). And, if I'm not mistaken, adultery is not illegal. The people who wrote the Constitution subscribed more to philosophies than Christianity.</p>
<p>Calidan, I think you're being a little too overprotective of the issue being no-boys-allowed. If I want to support women and their right to do as they please when it comes to their body, I think I should be allowed to.</p>
<p>I would be very displeased with America if the Supreme Court overturns Roe V. Wade for pro-life reasons (as opposed to overturning it for a more favorable pro-choice decision).</p>
<p>First and foremost: Adultery is indeed illegal. </p>
<p>With that said, I would be interested to see these pre-written laws that you speak of. I am not supporting or debasing that argument because I simply don't know about them. But, if there were laws, why would there be a need to proclaim them in the Ten Commandments?</p>
<p>"But, if there were laws, why would there be a need to proclaim them in the Ten Commandments?"</p>
<p>Is "why?" really the right question regarding anything about religion? I don't know what the laws are myself, but a.) there certainly were laws before Christianity and b.) it certainly was not alright to kill other people.</p>
<p>Wow, I never knew that about adultery, by the way. Is it a law that differs state by state? That's crazy. A little strange. I don't think I feel very good about it.</p>
<p>"b.) it certainly was not alright to kill other people." Tell that to terrorists who believe killing people will get them to heaven.</p>
<p>And yes, adultery is definitely illegal. From Wikipedia: "[A] number of states still retain adultery laws on the books."</p>
<p>I was about to quote Wikipedia myself. It seems you have skewed things. "In the United States, while a number of states still retain adultery laws on the books, they are rarely enforced, if ever." The words "while" and "very few" seem to change the meaning. Granted, it is still "illegal" in some places (I can only imagine where), and so I concede that.</p>
<p>"Tell that to terrorists who believe killing people will get them to heaven."</p>
<p>Unless you're referring to a terrorist attack that occurred on 09/11/01 B.C., I'm afraid I wasn't clear enough. I meant that I didn't know the names of the codes and laws that were established with the "Christian" principles before Christianity, but they had to have existed because there were laws and murder was not alright. I don't know much about the Middle East through the ages, but from what is said today I gather that the fringe group of Terrorists for Allah probably did not exist then. Afterall, everyone says that this is not the true form of Islam.</p>
<p>I couldn't handle making such egregious leaps of logic, so I Wikipedia'd the only code I knew of- The Code of Hammurabi.</p>
<p>"The Code of Hammurabi, ca. 1686 BC is one of the earliest sets of laws found, and one of the best preserved examples of this type of document from ancient Mesopotamia."</p>
<p>"It shows rules and punishments if those rules are defied. It focuses on theft, farming (or shepherding), property damage, women's rights, marriage rights, children's rights, slave rights, and murder, death, and injury."</p>
<p>There's also a talk on the Wikipedia article of the debate about whether or not Judaism's laws were derived from the Code. Even if it's untrue, there is no mention of it being the other way around.</p>
<p>Ok, well we could debate forever whether there were laws before and what exactly they were. But let's get back to the basis of the thread: Roe v. Wade.</p>
<p>I can only HOPE it will get overturned. But, the issue of abortion will be alse be debated forever. I think the issue really focuses on whether federal funding should be used for abortion clinics. I think it is ludicrous that federal tax dollars should go to help an 18 year-old girl who got "knocked up" because she was drunk. There are a few cases where I support abortion, but these are clearly in the minority (such as rape, incest, etc.).</p>
<p>Yes, the minority cases are manipulative when used by many people. I actually don't think the issue focuses on whether or not federal funding should be used to assist "18 year-old girl(s) who got "knocked up" because (they were) drunk." I think people call it like they see it- evil, necessary, good, a right, etc.- and that's how they really feel about it.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if I support federal funding of it. I would have to learn exactly what is supposed to be funded and how much funding it requires. We've certainly spent money on worse things than assisting something that was going to happen anyway. I hate to go fringe here, but <em>insert back-alley argument or mother-leaving-baby-in-trash argument</em>. Taking the money away is not going to allay the girl's fears or selfishness, as some people would deem it.</p>
<p>More on topic (since this wasn't supposed to be about abortion in theory) I think that President Bush would be acting against his proclaimed policy of uniting America if he pursues the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As someone said, it would throw the issue back to the states; if the electoral college map of the 2004 election didn't already look like a modern day Civil War diagram, it would after this.</p>
<p>uc-benz: I know you said your not arguing about this anymore, but American laws are based on what our forefathers beleived to be "the people's rights" They wanted to create a free society where people could live as they choose and not be forced to conform. However, they knew we needed laws and rules to protect people's rights. When of the most basic rights is right to life. Therefore, one of the first and most obvious laws is against killing. To make the comment that the idea that it is wrong to kill comes solely from Christianity or the Bible is ridiculous. Before Christianity existed, humans respected life. I'm not Christian, and I respect life and think it is wrong to kill. True, like terrorists, not all people respect life, but I think the majority do. To be allowed to kill, would be taking away another's right to live, and that is where the law comes from.
All this is a pretty good argument against abortion also.
In terms of federal funding, there isn't federal funding that goes specifically towards abortion procedures. But, there is federal funding that goes towards establishments, such as planned parenthood, that do abortion procedures along with supplying many other reproductive medical services.
Finally, the financial argument. It costs the government, which costs us because it's our tax money, much more to pay for the costs of women to go through pregnancy and birth and can't afford it so therefore use money from certain social services than the money that is going towards reproductive health establishments. IT costs us much more money in terms of all the different social services we have and need that deal with unwanted and abandoned children, or welfare that supports women that have children but can't really afford them. Now, does that mean that we should fund abortion? NO, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that if you are going to make it about finances alone, the cold truth is, abortions save us money.
Please understand though, I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR ABORTION. Just making a point.</p>
<p>Uc-benz, I certainly agree with you that whether Roe V Wade is overturned or limited in any way, that the abortion controversy will continue. And abortions will also continue to happen, just in different venues. This is an age old controversy. </p>
<p>I find it odd that a fetus is not considered a person in our society in that there are few condolences and certainly no funeral when a woman has miscarriage (called a spontaneous abortion). There are no markers, names or indicators in the family album about this "nonperson". It simply never existed. Yet in Japan, miscarried and aborted fetuses are recognized in the family crypts; and in a country where abortion is legal and readily available.</p>
<p>I'll advocate for government funded abortions. I don't want us to go the way of china where abortions are easier to get than contraception at least the last I checked but I lean toward anything that stop children from being born to parents that aren't physically or mentally in a place to parent a child, including the 9 months preceding birth.</p>
<p>Irealize that this steps on individual rights, but to see these kids make the rounds of foster homes like a revolving door, occasionally going back to their birth mother until she abuses or kills them, is more than I can stand, I might not vote to pay women not to get pregnant, but I sure wish we could.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In terms of federal funding, there isn't federal funding that goes specifically towards abortion procedures. But, there is federal funding that goes towards establishments, such as planned parenthood, that do abortion procedures along with supplying many other reproductive medical services.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Whether the money goes directly or indirectly it still goes towards it.</p>