Current or modern politics in the United States

[LadyLuck]

It's that time of the year again. I was reviewing a list of celebrities we have lost this year and did not realize that Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as "Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v Wade decision by the SCOTUS that legalized abortion, had passed away this year.

It appears that McCorvey was working for a clinic in the mid nineties when a pro life group set up shop next door. McCorvey was a heavy smoker and during smoke breaks she would chat with the women from the pro life group. Eventually she saw the light and switched sides and spent the rest of her life "fighting the law that bears my name". In the end even she knew she was wrong.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

It's that time of the year again. I was reviewing a list of celebrities we have lost this year and did not realize that Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as "Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v Wade decision by the SCOTUS that legalized abortion, had passed away this year.

It appears that McCorvey was working for a clinic in the mid nineties when a pro life group set up shop next door. McCorvey was a heavy smoker and during smoke breaks she would chat with the women from the pro life group. Eventually she saw the light and switched sides and spent the rest of her life "fighting the law that bears my name". In the end even she knew she was wrong.

I know an awful lot of women that disagree with both you and her. Since we are talking about the disposition of their bodies, their emotional lives, their economic futures, and their moral choices, it does not seem consistent with basic fairness, or our constitution for men to constrain their decisions. Anyway, there is a whole separate thread devoted to this debate. Polls show that the repression of women agenda is held by a minority of voters and there does not seem to be a pressing need to have this thread taken over by that discussion.

To my mind, the difficulty with Roe v. Wade is that Justice Blackmun used the wrong constitutional argument to acknowledge that a woman's right to have an abortion is implicit in the Constitution of the United States. The SCOTUS rectified that misinterpretation in the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey where it was stated that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion flows from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Jenny48549]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

It's that time of the year again. I was reviewing a list of celebrities we have lost this year and did not realize that Norma McCorvey, otherwise known as "Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v Wade decision by the SCOTUS that legalized abortion, had passed away this year.

It appears that McCorvey was working for a clinic in the mid nineties when a pro life group set up shop next door. McCorvey was a heavy smoker and during smoke breaks she would chat with the women from the pro life group. Eventually she saw the light and switched sides and spent the rest of her life "fighting the law that bears my name". In the end even she knew she was wrong.

That is true and while you can state your opinion on this I have to state this.

Please understand that I am neither a conservative nor a liberal, I am simply a woman trying to make a statement.

If you are not a woman, you can never understand the choices we may have to make.

No one has the right to tell a woman that she may wrong when she is compelled to make a choice to have a child. There are a great deal of circumstances that could be involved when a woman makes this choice. Think about it, it covers a myriad of issues. There are so many children that have not been adopted in this country due to stupid regulations or because they have physical or mental issues. Case in point, my uncle and aunt adopted two boys from Canada because of the BS crap that adoption in the States entails.

Would any man want someone to tell them what to do when it involved their physical health, or their child's physical heath, or their own well being and and their child's chances in surviving in life ? The ways things are economically, and with other factors like reduction of medical coverage, I don't think so.......

I'm very lucky that I never had to make this decision at some time in my life. However, if it would have been a necessity to do so because of extenuating circumstances, I sure as hell would not want to have the government or anyone else tell me what I can or can not do when it comes to me personally.

If people want to help or say they are against choice, then they should agree to adopt, take care of., and support the kids who already have no families who care. If I were in a financially stable situation where I know I could afford to do this, I would do it in a heartbeat. Would you ?????.......

/End Rant.....

[Puhbear69]

"The Toupee" is having the bigger (... button) as his contractant Kim Jong-un as "The Toupee" last notes on twitter. .

This must be a fit occasion for the US- caricaturists - or better caricaturists all over the whole world.

And it's telling so much about the political maturity and spiritual maturity of this guy. :head-shaking:

[tsunamiSD]

The richest man in the House of Representatives will not seek re-election, after spending all of Obama's turn in office taking pot-shots at him. Seems he couldn't take the heat when it was him people were taking pot-shots at.

Darrell Issa Won't Seek Re-Election

And the arrogant son of a Representative turned fairly long-time Representative himself is having the pressure turned up on him - if this keeps up, he might be the second notable San Diego area Congressman to fall by the wayside (although in his case it might be by losing an election instead of doing the right thing by admitting he thought he could get away with spending money on lots of personal things.)

Grand jury subpoena issued in Rep. Duncan Hunter criminal investigation

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Jenny48549

That is true and while you can state your opinion on this I have to state this.

Please understand that I am neither a conservative nor a liberal, I am simply a woman trying to make a statement.

If you are not a woman, you can never understand the choices we may have to make.

No one has the right to tell a woman that she may wrong when she is compelled to make a choice to have a child. There are a great deal of circumstances that could be involved when a woman makes this choice. Think about it, it covers a myriad of issues. There are so many children that have not been adopted in this country due to stupid regulations or because they have physical or mental issues. Case in point, my uncle and aunt adopted two boys from Canada because of the BS crap that adoption in the States entails.

Would any man want someone to tell them what to do when it involved their physical health, or their child's physical heath, or their own well being and and their child's chances in surviving in life ? The ways things are economically, and with other factors like reduction of medical coverage, I don't think so.......

I'm very lucky that I never had to make this decision at some time in my life. However, if it would have been a necessity to do so because of extenuating circumstances, I sure as hell would not want to have the government or anyone else tell me what I can or can not do when it comes to me personally.

If people want to help or say they are against choice, then they should agree to adopt, take care of., and support the kids who already have no families who care. If I were in a a financially stable situation where I know I could afford to do this, I would do it in a heartbeat. Would you ?????.......

/End Rant.....

Have to agree with this 100%

Even as a sympathetic man I can't really imagine all a woman has to deal with in carrying/birthing a child, and for a "pro-life" man to simply override all of that because he thinks it's a "sin" to destroy an unwanted fetus is simply arrogant beyond belief.

The simple fact is that for us men, our entire involvement in the child-making process involves nothing more than a pleasurable squirt, should we choose to limit it to that. For a woman, that little squirt is merely the beginning of a long and difficult process.

If you are a man and you want to have a say in what is to be grown in a woman's womb, then:

A) First, it better be YOUR child growing in there. If it isn't, shut up. You get no say.

B) You had better be in a position to provide some substantial economic support to the woman carrying your child, and be perfectly willing to provide it as needed.

C) You had better be able to adequately provide for that child as well, once it is born. Both with financial support and personal attention. Want to be a father? Then you'd better act like one.

Meet the above requirements and you are then qualified to help decide. Otherwise, there's the door. Take your inferior genes and walk the fuck out through it. And keep away from the women too. You don't deserve to touch them.

[rodneyz10]

Yes, I agree also, these are rational points intended to bring about rational discussion and conclusions. The problem is that those opposed to abortion do not pursue the discussion in rational terms, they pursue it in emotional and religious terms. If God and Jesus said it was murder, then that's the end of the discussion, period. It's not rational, it's religion speaking and controlling women's bodies and decisions. Opponents are not interested in rationality, they believe they're pursuing a higher cause, and only need answer to that higher power. They lament the US is a secular state, where all are (presumably, rhetorically) equal. If they had their way, we'd all still be saying the Pledge of Allegience and the Lords Prayer every day in school.

[Arturo2nd]

The Christians who claim that the United States is a "Christian nation" should study our history more carefully. Maryland was founded as a refuge for English Catholics fleeing persecution by the official Anglican church in Britain. Pennsylvania was founded as a refuge for the Quakers, who graciously provided for freedom of religious conscience. The Puritans moved to New England to in order to be to follow their religious beliefs. Connecticut and Rhode Island were founded by dissenters from the mainstream Puritans in Massachusetts. Jefferson, Madison, and Patrick Henry were very familiar with the uproar that occurred in Virginia when the Anglican church sought to have all residents contribute to its upkeep as the official state church regardless of citizens private beliefs.

The memories of the Thirty Years War, the recurring shifts in shifts of sovereigns' religious preferences that culminated in the English Civil War, and the slaughter of the French Religious Wars were much fresher in the minds of our forefathers. Furthermore, several were Freemasons or Deists in their orientation. There were even some Jews who were vital to the success of the Revolution, but were subsequently written out of the mainstream histories. Separation of church and state was seen as vital to both our freedom and the well being of the state, which is why freedom of religion is included in those enumerated in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

I can appreciate that some religious citizens believe that abortion is murder. War is state sanctioned organized murder. Capital punishment is state sanctioned murder. Human affairs do not always lend themselves to black and white answers.

[BustyWomenLovr]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

The Christians who claim that the United States is a "Christian nation" should study our history more carefully. ....

Yes yes a thousand times YES!

[bowlinggreen]

So now apparently the government is shutting down. This pisses me off. It will create some inconvenience, that's for sure.

How did things get to this point anyway? I am seeing petty extremism on both sides, this is not how a rational government is supposed to be run.

We ought to pitch all the bastards out, liberal AND conservative, and start over from scratch.