Pro-choice doctor shot & killed

I understand the sentiment, but I vehemently disagree. What this nut-job, and he is imo a nut-job, did, was to ruin a forward momentum to make case law with regards to late term abortions and abortion clinic practices. The goal with this case was to make headway into looking into abortion clinic records and auditing their standards as well. Most persons involved on either side understand that this battle NEEDS to be handled via the courts. Vigilanteism harms the cause, breaks the law and sets us back.
I don't think it can or should be settled in the courts, but instead through legislation, which is where law is supposed to be made, unless you agree with the likes of Sotomayor. And legislation is basically a negotiation. Negotiations under the threat of violence has a long tradition of working towards the favor of those who are willing to commit more violence than the opposition. The ultimate example of this truism is war, which is in effect a negotiating tool.
 
I don't think it can or should be settled in the courts, but instead through legislation, which is where law is supposed to be made, unless you agree with the likes of Sotomayor. And legislation is basically a negotiation. Negotiations under the threat of violence has a long tradition of working towards the favor of those who are willing to commit more violence than the opposition. The ultimate example of this truism is war, which is in effect a negotiating tool.

True to a point. The trouble is that abortion law must be challenged at the SCOUTUS level because of ROE.
 
Justice is sweet. :clink:

shame-on-xtians.gif


6209sig.jpg
 
True to a point. The trouble is that abortion law must be challenged at the SCOUTUS level because of ROE.
Probably, but my understanding of the Roe decision is that it allowed abortion in the first trimester only. I'm not sure how these mid, late, partial, and finally the Obamian "born alive but let 'em die" decisions came about.
 
Probably, but my understanding of the Roe decision is that it allowed abortion in the first trimester only. I'm not sure how these mid, late, partial, and finally the Obamian "born alive but let 'em die" decisions came about.

Roe was a States Rights infringement. The tri-mester argument came about because the "when life begins" question has never been resolved in the courts and could not be efectively argued in 1972. So the ridiculous "tri-mester" measurement was adopted. That is why I believe that if we can get the right case before SCOTUS we can show that test to be a false one what with the advances in science. SCOTUS really does not want such a case because all thinking people KNOW that abortion is currently the lawful killing of human beings, but one that our self absorbed narcistic society wishes to keep. We are the nation of instant tidy everything and abortion is an instant tidy solution to an unwanted preganancy.
 
Roe was a States Rights infringement. The tri-mester argument came about because the "when life begins" question has never been resolved in the courts and could not be efectively argued in 1972. So the ridiculous "tri-mester" measurement was adopted. That is why I believe that if we can get the right case before SCOTUS we can show that test to be a false one what with the advances in science. SCOTUS really does not want such a case because all thinking people KNOW that abortion is currently the lawful killing of human beings, but one that our self absorbed narcistic society wishes to keep. We are the nation of instant tidy everything and abortion is an instant tidy solution to an unwanted preganancy.
I think a GOP candidate that addressed this issue and offered a compromise to make anything beyond first trimester illegal would do well. At least it would save lives.
 
I think a GOP candidate that addressed this issue and offered a compromise to make anything beyond first trimester illegal would do well. At least it would save lives.

Anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-torture candidates are the future.

Why would anyone vote any other way?
 
Back
Top