Support NeoGAF

[malek4980]

The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.
What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"
"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.
"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Kinkeade and Hecht are both good friends of Miers and should have knowledge of this sort of thing.

Wall Street Journal

What will happen to Republicans, will they be pressured from anti-abortion Republicans to support a lightweight crony to the Supreme Court against their best judgment?

 

[Lhadatt]

:lol

Not to say I think she's a good choice for the court, but I love it when LeftGAF posts stuff like this.

To think - it doesn't matter what she might think about things like the freedoms guarenteed by the Bill of Rights, commerce issues like intellectual property and software patents, copyright law, the DMCA and its ilk, or really even her state of mind and physical health given her age...

It all comes down to abortion, the most trivial, rediculous, over-hyped, yet divisive issue the US has dealt with in this generation.

Tangent: One would think an issue of this magnitude would be put to a direct vote by the American people. What the hell is the court system doing deciding social issues? Leave that to the people to decide. It should do a fair job of settling it and get everyone to shut up for a few years.

 

[malek4980]

:lol

Not to say I think she's a good choice for the court, but I love it when LeftGAF posts stuff like this.

I'm a centrist, which makes me a right wing nut by GAF standards.

To think - it doesn't matter what she might think about things like the freedoms guarenteed by the Bill of Rights, commerce issues like intellectual property and software patents, copyright law, the DMCA and its ilk, or really even her state of mind and physical health given her age...

It all comes down to abortion, the most trivial, rediculous, over-hyped, yet divisive issue the US has dealt with in this generation.

Tangent: One would think an issue of this magnitude would be put to a direct vote by the American people. What the hell is the court system doing deciding social issues? Leave that to the people to decide. It should do a fair job of settling it and get everyone to shut up for a few years.

I don't think abortion is a trivial issue; there are over a million abortions that occur annually in the U.S. It's not an issue that should be put on a national plebiscite, it’s far too important to be left to the general public. Anyway the vote is likely to be split, do you want one every year?

That being said Roe v Wade is weak, a law should be made making it legal and be done with it (were it only that easy).

 

[AstroLad]

:lol

Not to say I think she's a good choice for the court, but I love it when LeftGAF posts stuff like this . . . . It all comes down to abortion, the most trivial, rediculous, over-hyped, yet divisive issue the US has dealt with in this generation.

Don't You Dare Judge Harriet Miers on Abortion by William Saletan

Here we go again: Democrats pressing for a nominee's views on abortion; Republicans saying it's improper to screen nominees based on their beliefs and politics.

Let's drop the piety. Miers has already been screened for her abortion beliefs and politics by the White House and its allies. A few examples:

1. Karl Rove. According to the New York Times, Rove "started calling influential social conservatives to reassure them," in particular James Dobson. Subsequently, "Dobson said he came out to support her partly because of her faith and partly because he believed she opposed abortion. 'I have reason to believe she is pro-life,' he said." As to what Rove had told him, Dobson demurred: "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about." According to the Associated Press, Dobson told his radio audience that Miers was pro-life and predicted she'd be a good justice based on "some of the things I know—that I probably shouldn't know."

2. Nathan Hecht. The Times reported that Monday morning that "the White House and the Republican Party began organizing a series of nearly a half-dozen conference calls with conservative organizers. ... In one call, friends of Ms. Miers, including Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, testified to her evangelical Christian faith and devoted participation in the theologically conservative Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. Mr. Hecht, in particular, assured them that she personally opposed abortion and had once attended 'pro-life' events with him, said participants in the call." The Dallas Morning News reported that Hecht, a former Rove campaign client, "worked the phones Tuesday on a mission authorized at the highest levels of the White House" spreading the good word about Miers through the press. Hecht told the Los Angeles Times, "Harriet goes to a church that is pro-life. ... She gives them a lot of money. Her personal views lie in that direction." He told the Washington Post, "She thinks that after conception, it's not a balancing act—or if it is, it's a balancing of two equal lives." Presumably, Hecht made the same points on the conference calls.

3. Leonard Leo. Leo, the GOP's chairman for Catholic outreach, disseminated a memo telling conservatives that Miers "led a campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions." According to the New York Times, Leo, enlisted by "staff members of the Senate Republican leadership," touted Miers' ABA campaign at a meeting with conservative activists.

4. Others. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, has been proselytizing on the right for Miers. "I encourage people to connect the dots," he explained to the Los Angeles Times. "Hecht is a pro-life conservative, so we take a lot of comfort from that." Keith Appell, an influential conservative publicist, issued a statement trumpeting her $150 donation to Texans United for Life. And according to the Detroit Free Press, Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, said supporters are spreading "the story of Harriet Miers becoming a Christian"—a story "linked to her growing political conservatism."

I'm sure some Democrats will press Miers to say she'd reaffirm Roe v. Wade. I'm sure a few Republicans will press her to say she wouldn't. I'm sure she'll refuse to say one way or the other. But let's not have any lectures about the impropriety of scrutinizing her politics and beliefs. We've crossed that line already.

http://www.slate.com/id/2127679/

Those crazy lefties and their nonsensical abortion fixation.

 

[MetatronM]

Tangent: One would think an issue of this magnitude would be put to a direct vote by the American people. What the hell is the court system doing deciding social issues? Leave that to the people to decide. It should do a fair job of settling it and get everyone to shut up for a few years.

The ENTIRE CONCEPT of the court is that it WON'T make decisions on social issues based solely on the immediate whimsy of the people. The fact that justices are not concerned with reelection is supposed to make it so that they can make unpopular decisions against the grain of the public's current fickle disposition without fear of falling out of favor and losing their jobs.

Besides, the court can only say yes or no to an act of the legislature. The fact of the matter is that they don't decide social issues at all. They only decide whether or not the legislature is constitutionally allowed to decide a social issue.

 

[Phoenix]

The ENTIRE CONCEPT of the court is that it WON'T make decisions on social issues based solely on the immediate whimsy of the people. The fact that justices are not concerned with reelection is supposed to make it so that they can make unpopular decisions against the grain of the public's current fickle disposition without fear of falling out of favor and losing their jobs.

Besides, the court can only say yes or no to an act of the legislature. The fact of the matter is that they don't decide social issues at all. They only decide whether or not the legislature is constitutionally allowed to decide a social issue.

QFT, Justice, and the American way...

 

[DDayton]

Cool.

 

[Lhadatt]

I'm a centrist, which makes me a right wing nut by GAF standards.

:lol Retracted, my apologies. The OP does have that LeftGAF vibe to it, though...

I don't think abortion is a trivial issue; there are over a million abortions that occur annually in the U.S. It's not an issue that should be put on a national plebiscite, it’s far to important to be left to the general public. Anyway the vote is likely to be split, do you want one every year?

I think it's an extremely trivial issue, whether the rest of the country agrees with me or not. In my mind, getting the public to decide when life begins is too hard - there needs to be a compromise. Either the "women's choice" side decides to learn about protection and keeping their legs shut, or the pro-lifers resign themselves to the existence of the practice and pray for those who get abortions. We don't need constant bickering over an issue this silly while our government taxes us to hell and blows up Iran.

(yes, yes, I know, exceptions for sex crimes and whatnot)

That being said Roe v Wade is weak, a law should be made making it legal and be done with it (were it only that easy).

Hence my desire for a referendum. Put it to a vote, make a provision in the law that forces the decision to stand for 30 years or so before being tampered with.

MetatronM: True enough, I slipped. I'm still not sure why her opinion on abortion matters, as long as we can determine if she'll hold to the decision or not.

I'm really just sick of the issue, our society needs to settle it in some fashion. I don't think the court is the way to do it, though.

 

[White Man]

If RvW is overturned, I'd say it's abandon ship time for folks with brains in the US. The religious oligarchy will have its talons in firm.

Of course, it may take something this dire to force the democrats to get their shit together. But if it comes to that, I'll probably already be out of the country.

 

[Lambtron]

I think it's an extremely trivial issue, whether the rest of the country agrees with me or not. In my mind, getting the public to decide when life begins is too hard - there needs to be a compromise. Either the "women's choice" side decides to learn about protection and keeping their legs shut, or the pro-lifers resign themselves to the existence of the practice and pray for those who get abortions. We don't need constant bickering over an issue this silly while our government taxes us to hell and blows up Iran.

This would be a lot less of an issue if they also didn't try their damnedest to keep sex ed out of the schools. How much do they teach about sex outside of "IT'S BAD!!!!" in the schools, seriously? I don't remember learning much more outside of that. I shouldn't feel dirty for going to Planned Parenthood, or buying condoms. I don't like the idea of abortion as birth control, but I understand its place in medicine. But guess what? The nutjobs who shoot abortion doctors never will.

As far as them overturning Roe v. Wade, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think they'll ever do it. They have too much to gain by not overturning it. If they (meaning the Religious Right) continue to threaten to overturn it, they get the vote out, and keep their people in power. If they actually overturn it, they'll just rile up the other side. It's all about power. Maybe I'm just naïve. I do what I can to uh, keep that from happening in the way I vote, and I will be right there screaming if it does get overturned, but I just don't forsee it happening. The "right" in the US is far too good at playing the game of politics. They pretty much just use religion as a tool to keep themselves in power. When it comes right down to it, W, Rick Santorum, and that whole fucking bunch, just want power. They don't give a fuck about their "base," me, anyone, really. Just themselves.

 

[onion_pixy]

:lol

Not to say I think she's a good choice for the court, but I love it when LeftGAF posts stuff like this.

To think - it doesn't matter what she might think about things like the freedoms guarenteed by the Bill of Rights, commerce issues like intellectual property and software patents, copyright law, the DMCA and its ilk, or really even her state of mind and physical health given her age...

It all comes down to abortion, the most trivial, rediculous, over-hyped, yet divisive issue the US has dealt with in this generation.

Tangent: One would think an issue of this magnitude would be put to a direct vote by the American people. What the hell is the court system doing deciding social issues? Leave that to the people to decide. It should do a fair job of settling it and get everyone to shut up for a few years.

hey, fuck you. If you're a chick its not a trivial thing. AT ALL.

 

[Hitokage]

It's not abortion that's a big issue, it's the idea that there is a limit to what government can say and do regarding an individual's life and actions... the "right of privacy" that Roe v. Wade hinges upon.

 

[fart]

while i agree, abortion's a pretty big deal too.

 

[kablooey]

This would be a lot less of an issue if they also didn't try their damnedest to keep sex ed out of the schools. How much do they teach about sex outside of "IT'S BAD!!!!" in the schools, seriously? I don't remember learning much more outside of that. I shouldn't feel dirty for going to Planned Parenthood, or buying condoms. I don't like the idea of abortion as birth control, but I understand its place in medicine. But guess what? The nutjobs who shoot abortion doctors never will.

I agree. I can understand being uncomfortable with abortion in general, but the best way to prevent them is to educate kids about safe sex, which many of the militant/religious anti-abortion sect don't want to acknowledge.

My school did a pretty decent job of educating us about safe sex, although they did make some outlandish claims about how condoms only work 70% of the time, which is obviously bullshit (though I bought it at the time, naive fuck that I was. ).

 

[cicero]

I don't think abortion is a trivial issue; there are over a million abortions that occur annually in the U.S. It's not an issue that should be put on a national plebiscite, it’s far too important to be left to the general public. Anyway the vote is likely to be split, do you want one every year?

That being said Roe v Wade is weak, a law should be made making it legal and be done with it (were it only that easy).

And what other "important" issues does this rational apply to? The "important" issues should be left entirely to "important" people?...

The ENTIRE CONCEPT of the court is that it WON'T make decisions on social issues based solely on the immediate whimsy of the people. The fact that justices are not concerned with reelection is supposed to make it so that they can make unpopular decisions against the grain of the public's current fickle disposition without fear of falling out of favor and losing their jobs.

Besides, the court can only say yes or no to an act of the legislature. The fact of the matter is that they don't decide social issues at all. They only decide whether or not the legislature is constitutionally allowed to decide a social issue.

Where does judicial activism come into this? Ideally that may be the purpose, realistically though the workings of the court have been quite different.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

This would be a lot less of an issue if they also didn't try their damnedest to keep sex ed out of the schools. How much do they teach about sex outside of "IT'S BAD!!!!" in the schools, seriously? I don't remember learning much more outside of that. I shouldn't feel dirty for going to Planned Parenthood, or buying condoms. I don't like the idea of abortion as birth control, but I understand its place in medicine. But guess what? The nutjobs who shoot abortion doctors never will.

As far as them overturning Roe v. Wade, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think they'll ever do it. They have too much to gain by not overturning it. If they (meaning the Religious Right) continue to threaten to overturn it, they get the vote out, and keep their people in power. If they actually overturn it, they'll just rile up the other side. It's all about power. Maybe I'm just naïve. I do what I can to uh, keep that from happening in the way I vote, and I will be right there screaming if it does get overturned, but I just don't forsee it happening. The "right" in the US is far too good at playing the game of politics. They pretty much just use religion as a tool to keep themselves in power. When it comes right down to it, W, Rick Santorum, and that whole fucking bunch, just want power. They don't give a fuck about their "base," me, anyone, really. Just themselves.

I learned quite a bit actually in 7th grade, i was never told it was bad, it was completely objectional, and this was in 92, i suppose this varies from state to state, I was in PA. I never felt bad nor was i taught it was wrong, I was taught that sex comes with a big responsibility and if you fuck up kiss your life goodbye, that is if you step up to the responsibility of taking care of the child. Sex ed is simply a neccesary topic, because way too many kids are fuckin up, so if it takes publicly saying ...what we have known for millenia, that people fuck, to curb unwanted pregnancy then hey we should do it, because while the ideal of abstinence does indeed work, in practice ...everyone just about falls short of that goal so might as well have a back up plan!

Where did you go to school?

 

[Guileless]

Besides, the court can only say yes or no to an act of the legislature. The fact of the matter is that they don't decide social issues at all. They only decide whether or not the legislature is constitutionally allowed to decide a social issue.

That's the theory, but in practice an activist court does decide social issues. If you have ever read Griswold or Roe, then you know there are holes in the reasoning regardless of what you think of abortion personally. Creating new rights in the Constitution based on "emanations of penumbras" is going beyond merely saying yes or no to an act of the legislature.

 

[Prospero]

The real problem here isn't Miers' potential stance on Roe v. Wade: it's that she apparently can't write for shit. From the New York Times (the op-eds are subscription only now, so no link--also, note that this is by David Brooks, so spare me the speech about how the NYT is full of lefties):

In Her Own Words
By DAVID BROOKS
Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself. In the early 90's, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.

Of course, we have to make allowances for the fact that the first job of any association president is to not offend her members. Still, nothing excuses sentences like this:

"More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Or this: "We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism."

Or this: "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."

Or passages like this: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."

Or, finally, this: "We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support."

I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers's prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.

 

[whytemyke]

so wait... harriet miers is still actually worrying people as far as nomination goes?

here's a general rule for the Bush administration: When ANN COULTER is on Fox News calling you stupid and saying shit like "We went along with the rest of your stupid policies, like the war and the patriot act, but this is going too far", then it's time to reconsider what you're doing, cuz you're about to lose the rest of those 39% that approve of you.

 

[Nerevar]

Hence my desire for a referendum. Put it to a vote, make a provision in the law that forces the decision to stand for 30 years or so before being tampered with.

Are you kidding? One of the strongest principles which our government was founded on was preventing a "tyranny of the majority". Putting an issue like that to a national referendum is a horrible idea. Contrary to popular belief, the government is supposed to act on the best interests of it's people, not to do what the majority wants. That's why it's not a true democracy.

 

[bob_arctor]

Hence my desire for a referendum. Put it to a vote, make a provision in the law that forces the decision to stand for 30 years or so before being tampered with.

You want to put this to a vote from a country that actually re-elected Bush? :lol

 

[APF]

here's a general rule for the Bush administration: When ANN COULTER is on Fox News calling you stupid and saying shit like "We went along with the rest of your stupid policies, like the war and the patriot act, but this is going too far", then it's time to reconsider what you're doing, cuz you're about to lose the rest of those 39% that approve of you.

Coulter didn't like Roberts either. She's a fucktard, to coin a phrase.

 

[AssMan]

Not to say I think she's a good choice for the court, but I love it when LeftGAF posts stuff like this.

Yeah. On an unrelated note, It's amazing these liberal fools on GAF didn't post the story about ACLU wanting to release MORE Abu Graib photos. Those liberals hate america and want our U.S. troops to die over in the middle east. :lol


EDIT-MISLEADING thread title. Don't be so sure she'll overturn it.

 

[BigGreenMat]

The only thing I worry about is that Bush is putting Miers up there as a fall guy. Miers is one of his cronies so she knows that he will take care of her. Bush probably told her to give it a go because one of two things might happen: 1. she somehow escapes a lot of the criticism gets confirmed and she will be set for life and remember who got her there or 2. She takes one for the team and doesn't get confirmed, setting up the next nomination of a STAUNCHLY 'conservative' (I don't like this term as most conservatives are HARDLY conservative), religious, right wing judge with plenty of experience. If people try to rail against this nomination then Bushco simply cries that nobody will work for the Dems and they are just being combative and trying to sabotage any Bush nomination. Either way Bush wins and we lose. No one can really think he is going to install anyone who is in any way moderate.


Oh and to the people who claim abortion isn't a big deal, IT IS!! Roe v Wade is probably the second most important ruling the courts have ever made. The only ruling to have a greater impact (and this is questionable) was the 'trial of the century' Tennessee v John Scopes in which evolution was allowed to be taught giving precedence to thought and discovery over faith and assumption. The effects of Roe v Wade pervaded through the 90s having a distinctly positive effect on crime rates and personal wealth. If Roe v Wade ever gets taken down it will be a dark day and I just hope myself nor any of my line will be around for it.

 

[sans_pants]

so one justice can overturn anything



get a fucking clue

 

[malek4980]

The effects of Roe v Wade pervaded through the 90s having a distinctly positive effect on crime rates

Sounds lke post hoc ergo propter hoc, why was the first cohort of males born after Roe vs. Wade more violent? The rate didn't drop until the mid 90's, when the economy turned around.

so one justice can overturn anything



get a fucking clue

One justice can be the deciding vote.

get a fucking fleshlight and chill out

 

[APF]

The effects of Roe v Wade pervaded through the 90s having a distinctly positive effect on crime rates and personal wealth.

In before someone suggests aborting black babies...

 

[malek4980]

In before someone suggests aborting black babies...

"ummmm..."

 

[Lambtron]

hey, fuck you. If you're a chick its not a trivial thing. AT ALL.

It shouldn't be a trivial thing to dudes either. But most dudes don't care. 'Ya, I'll pull out, what are you talkin' about lol." I care. I don't want to have a child, so I'm well aware of the risks, and the protection I can take to keep that from happening, because the whole abortion/adoption thing is a nightmare, and I'm 23 and don't need that shit in my life, thanks.

I went to school in ultra conservative North Daktoa, so that may be why I had less sex ed (it was a unit in a general "Health" class, lasted at most 4 weeks, and mostly dealt with anatomy, and showing us disgusting STD videos), but it shouldn't happen, even in super conservative states. Teach kids how to use a condom. Teach them about other methods. What works and what doesn't. What's safe, what's not. Teach them about alternatives (ie, masturbation, also a horrifically "dirty" word). Just don't teach them nothing and then be like "what about the children! no abortion! sex is bad!" It's pretty back asswards.

 

[malek4980]

It shouldn't be a trivial thing to dudes either. But most dudes don't care. 'Ya, I'll pull out, what are you talkin' about lol." I care. I don't want to have a child, so I'm well aware of the risks, and the protection I can take to keep that from happening, because the whole abortion/adoption thing is a nightmare, and I'm 23 and don't need that shit in my life, thanks.

I went to school in ultra conservative North Daktoa, so that may be why I had less sex ed (it was a unit in a general "Health" class, lasted at most 4 weeks, and mostly dealt with anatomy, and showing us disgusting STD videos), but it shouldn't happen, even in super conservative states. Teach kids how to use a condom. Teach them about other methods. What works and what doesn't. What's safe, what's not. Teach them about alternatives (ie, masturbation, also a horrifically "dirty" word). Just don't teach them nothing and then be like "what about the children! no abortion! sex is bad!" It's pretty back asswards.

Teach them to masturbate?

What next, teach them to breathe?

 

[BigGreenMat]

Sounds lke post hoc ergo propter hoc, why was the first cohort of males born after Roe vs. Wade more violent? The rate didn't drop until the mid 90's, when the economy turned around.

Who said anything about the first cohort of males after Roe v Wade being more violent? The crime rate dropped DRASTICALLY in the early to mid-nineties right when the first children born after the ruling were reaching adulthood. Sure the economy being good helps, but the economy being bad in 2001 didn't mean there was a sudden great rise in crime, just as the supposed recovery has not led to huge decreases. Also the gain in the economy can just as easily be construed as an effect of Roe v Wade. It is a multifactorial equation, but the drastic changes that occur all seemed to be linked with the first adult generation after Roe v Wade.

 

[White Man]

Sounds lke post hoc ergo propter hoc, why was the first cohort of males born after Roe vs. Wade more violent? The rate didn't drop until the mid 90's, when the economy turned around.

You mean the mid 90s, when the first generartion of Roe v. Wade kids was hitting adulthood?

EDIT: Damnit, beaten.

 

[myzhi]

A pro-life Prez nominates a probable pro-life to Supreme Court. Shocking. Next thing, a liberal might push for pro-choice candidate. Stop the crazy talk now. Insane I tell you.

 

[teiresias]

Bill Maher had the best rant about the whole Harriet Miers situation on his "New Rules" segment the other day - absolutely brilliant and ties into the whole sex/abortion thing as well in terms of the ultra-right conservative mindset.

 

[enjoy bell woods]

Please, after seeing many forums destroyed by people doing this, don't use terms like "post hoc ergo propter hoc" here.

 

[Guileless]

You want to put this to a vote from a country that actually re-elected Bush? :lol

Every national poll shows that a solid majority favors abortion rights, and this country also overwhelmingly reelected President Clinton in 1996. Only a small number of committed activists vote based solely on abortion.

 

[sans_pants]

It shouldn't be a trivial thing to dudes either. But most dudes don't care. 'Ya, I'll pull out, what are you talkin' about lol." I care. I don't want to have a child, so I'm well aware of the risks, and the protection I can take to keep that from happening, because the whole abortion/adoption thing is a nightmare, and I'm 23 and don't need that shit in my life, thanks.

I went to school in ultra conservative North Daktoa, so that may be why I had less sex ed (it was a unit in a general "Health" class, lasted at most 4 weeks, and mostly dealt with anatomy, and showing us disgusting STD videos), but it shouldn't happen, even in super conservative states. Teach kids how to use a condom. Teach them about other methods. What works and what doesn't. What's safe, what's not. Teach them about alternatives (ie, masturbation, also a horrifically "dirty" word). Just don't teach them nothing and then be like "what about the children! no abortion! sex is bad!" It's pretty back asswards.

eh jesus. dont get me started on girls. there are tons of forms of protection and if you dont want a kid then dont have sex.


blah blah people have sex blah i know thats what you are going to say but if you cant protect yourself then please spare a baby.

 

[bob_arctor]

A pro-life Prez nominates a possible pro-life to Supreme Court. Shocking.

No, I see this more like an idiot nominates a bootlicker to a possible lifetime appointment presiding over the country's future. I'm sure there are tons of well-qualified canditates out there that are pro-life. Miers isn't remotely close to being one of them. But you know Dubya, he needs his cake and wants to eat it to.


Or as someone suggested, Miers is the Trojan Horse Candidate built to lose only so he can reveal his ultra-asshole pick. The thing is, that would suggest Dubya's a deceptively smart man whereas he's only deceptive really. But still, I can't shake the feeling that is exactly what is happening here...

 

[malek4980]

Please, after seeing many forums destroyed by people doing this, don't use terms like "post hoc ergo propter hoc" here.

Fine, but just because one thing follows something else, doesn't mean there is a cause and effect relationship. The homicide rate for 14 to 17 year olds born after 1972 actually rose and didn't fall until the late 90's (those born after 1980). If abortion was the magic bullet, that wouldn't have happened.

Note: I'm pro-schoice.
Got to go study for two mid-terms.

 

[APF]

[EDIT: beat!]

 

[Phoenix]

while i agree, abortion's a pretty big deal too.

Yeah. Who would have thought that aborting a life ( also known as killing ), would be thought of as something trivial.

Strange world we live in.

 

[Javaman]

A question for the religious folks against abortion.... Don't many religions claim that it is God's will when people die? Would that not be the case with abortions?

Regarding Ms. Miers, it's too early to accurately tell what her true agenda is.

 

[Doth Togo]

 

[sans_pants]

A question for the religious folks against abortion.... Don't many religions claim that it is God's will when people die? Would that not be the case with abortions?

Regarding Ms. Miers, it's too early to accurately tell what her true agenda is.

what the hell are you talking about. taking a life is gods will. question for all religious people but only a few religions believe that.


head exploding

 

[Dilbert]

Man, people keep losing the plot. Miers' stance on abortion is not the issue. The fact that she is UTTERLY FUCKING UNQUALIFIED to be on SCOTUS is the issue.

Ever been a judge? No.
Contributed anything of note to the law during your career? No.
Any evidence of intellectual distinction? No.
Picked for any reason other than cronyism and gender? No.

People across the political spectrum ought to be opposing this on principle, not on politics.

 

[sans_pants]

Man, people keep losing the plot. Miers' stance on abortion is not the issue. The fact that she is UTTERLY FUCKING UNQUALIFIED to be on SCOTUS is the issue.

Ever been a judge? No.
Contributed anything of note to the law during your career? No.
Any evidence of intellectual distinction? No.
Picked for any reason other than cronyism and gender? No.

People across the political spectrum ought to be opposing this on principle, not on politics.

i do oppose it, im just tired of people saying bush is trying to overturn roe v wade

 

[Argyle]

Man, people keep losing the plot. Miers' stance on abortion is not the issue. The fact that she is UTTERLY FUCKING UNQUALIFIED to be on SCOTUS is the issue.

Ever been a judge? No.
Contributed anything of note to the law during your career? No.
Any evidence of intellectual distinction? No.
Picked for any reason other than cronyism and gender? No.

People across the political spectrum ought to be opposing this on principle, not on politics.

Jinx! Welcome back!

 

[APF]

A question for the religious folks against abortion.... Don't many religions claim that it is God's will when people die? Would that not be the case with abortions?

Stop trying to disprove the adage that "there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers."

People across the political spectrum ought to be opposing this on principle, not on politics.

Uh, they do. Turn on the news, open up a newspaper.

 

[Excess Poo Flakes]

I for one, hope Roe gets overturned. I agree with everyone here however, that Miers' qualifications are nowhere to be found!

 

[sans_pants]

Stop trying to disprove the adage that "there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers."



Uh, they do. Turn on the news, open up a newspaper.

stupid people, not stupid answers