Although I have little issue to take with abortion myself, I'd be fully willing to reverse the decision if placed in that role if the numbers swung the opposite way. When the public favors legislation at a rate of 2:1, best to assume your role as a public servant means just that, and not the servant of your own tastes, an ideology, or your faction's base.
@SimplyTracie I like to think it's slightly less narcissistic than many other private convictions about this, but given my disregard of public opinion on a lot of other thing, it might just be dismissive laziness on my part.
Once upon a time, there was a Bible, and it was written with words of truth, and in those words, it was spoken some truth that, Thou Shalt Not Kill.
During the life of Jesus, human life was always supported and never obligated to be terminated by man.
Human life is a creation of God, and it is God's decision to end that life, not man.
If you know the name of Chuck Swindall, you would know a very good and faithful servent of God. He was the 6th child of a pair of very young Christian parents that were not sure if they could afford a 6th child. They considered abortion. But they decided not to abort. THen their 6th child comes to life and becomes one of the best preachers and Man of God ever.
@carsonfry Unfortunately, there still is a Bible. And during Jesus' time, as well as before and after, human life was as cheap as animal life, where people were killed or enslaved for no reason other than inconvenience or amusement. And that still goes on today, often supported and perpetuated by people who claim to follow Jesus.
If it is "God's decision to end that life, not man," then you should also oppose the taking of human life in other scenarios, such as capital punishment, warfare, and self-defense. If, like most so-called "pro-life" people, you're only interested in preserving fetal life, all we're doing is arguing over which people it's OK to kill.
And while Swindoll's story is interesting, many other people regret having children. The observed drop in crime in the U.S. since the early 1990s may be the result of the unwanted children who were aborted starting in 1973, not being here to prey on the rest of us when they otherwise would have started reaching their prime criminal years in their late teens.
Also, in addition to spelling Swindoll's name incorrectly, you got other details wrong. He was not "the 6th child of a pair of very young Christian parents;" he was the third of three children. So I would question your other assertion that he narrowly escaped being aborted or that his parents thought they couldn't afford him. He grew up in a solidly middle-class neighborhood in Houston, TX.
SW-User
No, I've been through having a partner who had an abortion.
If I was a SCOTUS justice, I would have no idea if I'd reverse Roe v. Wade until after I'd heard the oral arguments and read all of the amicus briefs in the case.
While I personally believe all abortions are a tragedy, I do not think that giving the federal government the power to reach into a woman's uterus and dictate what happens there is good for society in the long run.
A government powerful enough to give us everything we think we want is also powerful enough to take from us everything we thought we had.
In the meantime, there is much that can be done to reduce the number of abortions that take place in the US each year.
1. Reduce the cost and difficulty of private adoptions. Any two fertile male and female idiots can reproduce, regardless of their ability or desire to care for a child, yet would-be adoptive parents are subjected to expensive and time-consuming procedures which can discourage them from adopting.
2. Make it easier for couples who want to adopt and women who have an unintended and/or unwanted pregnancy to find each other to see if a private adoption and maternity care is feasible or desirable.
3. Eliminate all remaining societal stigma of being a pregnant, single woman regardless of her age and celebrate the new life that wants to enter this world through her.
I've wanted children and a family of my own for a long time, so I have difficulty understanding how any woman could want an abortion without the pregnancy posing a threat to her life or severe genetic defects in the fetus.
@SimplyTracie If there is a case that is currently winding its way through the federal court appellate process, it could end up at the SCOTUS. If Kavanaugh had answered the question, he would have to recuse himself from the case if/when it does get to the SCOTUS, assuming he is confirmed. Answering such a question about a pending case would be a disqualifying action for me to vote for any SCOTUS nominee, regardless of the answer given.
Senator Corey Booker, who asked Kavanaugh the question, is an attorney, and is smart enough to know that the vast majority of US voters don't know proper judicial conduct, don't know of or understand ex parte communications and their legal ramifications when they involve judges who opine on matters which they may very well be hearing in the near future.
I am not singling out the Democrats here. The Republicans do the same political theater for their own political ends.
How many times have you ever seen a discussion on TV news (or any news, for that matter) of Kavanaugh's actual legal decisions as a judge, and of the percentage of time when his decisions were reversed on appeal and how his reversal statistics compare to other judges' reversal statistics? I've never seen any, which doesn't surprise me at all.
Even all the controversy over Russian collusion and interference with the 2016 election is nothing more than political theater. Virtually everyone with a stake in the outcome of any election will do everything they can to influence it. In the US, the media has the most influence on the outcome of the elections, but not because of the topics they choose to cover, but because of the topics they choose to ignore or omit, as those decisions actually control what the vast number of voters don't know.
If you and your mom conspire to go to the grocery store, you are both guilty of conspiracy, even if you never actually go to the grocery store. Conspiracy is one of those "crimes" for which there doesn't need to be a victim. It is little different than criminalizing thoughts. No "crime" without an identifiable victim should be a crime. As things are now in the US, any of us could be prosecuted for any number of victimless "crimes" most of which we've never heard of. All it would take is for a US attorney to decide to investigate us.
@EnigmaticGeek I don’t see why he would need to recuse himself. Most judges have rendered an opinion on many different cases while in lower courts. Does that mean they cannot be impartial and hear a case as a SCOTUS Justice?
Why are you bringing up Feinstein? Or Russian collusion?
If my mom and I conspire to go shopping and we do go shopping, how is that a crime? It would be a crime if we conspired to rob the store.
@SimplyTracie In the context the questions were asked, there was clearly an expectation that Kavanaugh would agree to rule a certain way before he had even heard any arguments either way. That is why neither he, nor any other SCOTUS nominee answers such questions.
In the past, the media didn't make such an issue when politicians asked such questions that they knew wouldn't be answered. SCOTUS Justice Ginsberg was asked similar questions during her confirmation, which she declined to answer, for example. No one made an issue of her not answering at the time.
My bad re. putting Feinstein in my previous comment. It was actually Senator Corey Booker who asked the question you mentioned. I have edited my comment accordingly.
Discussing personal opinions about a particular subject in advance of the probability of hearing a case about the same topic is improper for any judge at any level.
I brought up the collusion as another example of how the politicians use the media to manipulate the public.
Judges at all levels routinely issue rulings based upon the law ant the relevant facts of the case before them that do not necessarily match their own personal opinions of how they think the world, or society should be relative to the issues raised in those cases.
Conspiracy alone shouldn't be considered a crime, as there are no victims. If you and your mom conspired to rob a store, but you never actually carried out your plan, and no store was ever harmed, do you think you should be prosecuted for conspiracy? Conspiracy itself is only thought. Do you really think people should go to prison for their thoughts if not acted upon?
1. Right or wrong, the Supreme Court had no business making abortion legal, because they were essentially legislating from the bench and overstepping their bounds, usurping power belonging to the legislative branch of the government (Congress). And,
2. Human life begins at conception, and the only real justification for ending a life is if it's necessary to save another life. Therefore it should only be allowed if it's necessary to save the life of the mother.
I'm sure that many will disagree with me and I'll probably be blocked by many for saying this, but that is how I see it.
I'm guessing that the deformities would be more life threatening, but seeing as how I haven't read about it, I don't actually know.
Personally, I wish abortion clinics would pair up with adoption agencies. I understand that older (foster) kids are harder to adopt but maybe that would give the mothers another option, including additional support during the pregnancy.
I would not reverse it. A woman, as well as anyone else; has the right to do what they please with their body. But....an abortion is not necessary. It is elective surgery and the government should not pay for it, unless it is a rape or incest etc... It should not be paid for because it is convenient for the woman.
I don't agree with abortion, but the woman is the one that has to live with the decision, not me.
I am pro abortion simply as it’s better to abort than bring more unwanted babies into the world and it’s my body so I’ll choose if I carry a child or not. However I’m in a good situation as me having sex is never going to produce a baby since I’m lesbian lol.
As grim as it sounds, I have come to terms with the sort of people seeking abortions killing their offspring. As such they can take the freedom Patrick Henry fought for and use it to murder their babies.
So, if the nazis had won, it wouldn't have been murder? Think this through, you're missing the obvious point that taking a totally innocent human life is ALWAYS murder, irrespective of any man made laws, nazi or otherwise.@LeopoldBloom
@redredred How would it be murder? What court would have charged them if they had won?
Sorry, but words don't mean whatever you want them to mean. It would still have been unjustifiable killing of innocent people regardless of whether it was legal or not or if they had won or not, but not "murder." Otherwise the word only means "killing that redredred disapproves of."
Just curious, when children are killed in warfare, should we prosecute the soldiers for murder when they return home? You said that "taking a totally innocent human life is ALWAYS murder," so surely you wouldn't make an exception just because the kid lived in a country that your country was at war with.
And I'm tired of people saying fetuses are "innocent." No, they're not capable of forming criminal intent, but if they're causing harm to the mother by their presence, she can use deadly force to remove them. It doesn't matter if the harm isn't intentional. Remember when John Hinckley shot Reagan because he thought he was protecting the Jodie Foster character in "Taxi Driver." If the Secret Service had killed him, that would not have resulted in a murder charge just because Hinckley didn't know what he was doing. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity, and after several years in a mental hospital, he was released with no criminal charges filed. And he shot the president.
Yes, the children killed in war are victims of murder. I believe that's as obvious a fact as there is. The fact that the perpetrators aren't prosecuted doesn't change the facts.
The entire legal effect of Roe v Wade is to declare a woman's uterus a free-fire zone where the owner of the uterus can commit murder without penalty and to give her the right to engage an agent for that murder. @LeopoldBloom
I would rather put it up for a public vote before the people. I believe the people should decide this matter, not politicians.
We were born and blessed as a nation because of our Christian roots.
As I was surprised that the public was smart enough to elect Trump over Hillary. I would be equally as surprised if we still have enough Americans that think abortion is wrong.
That's not an easy question to answer. As I understand it, the legal basis for Roe is badly flawed, but I greatly favor its impact on our laws and rights.
You ask, however, "as a Supreme Court Justice" so I'm supposed to be blind to the impact and rule on the law as written. Not sure I could.
To all the people who believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I'd like to know your stance on birth control. It has been revealed that Judge Kavanaugh believes that birth control pills are "abortion inducing" drugs and has previously ruled in favor of companies that did not want the company's insurance to cover birth control. So my question is two-fold: do you believe that birth control pills are "abortion inducing" and do you agree with his ruling on favor of the companies?
@Antoniuspoe Please, we all know that Kavanaugh is a conservative hack who was only nominated because the Federalist Society vetted him and submitted his name to Trump for consideration. The only reason Trump chose him over Amy Coney Barrett and that other guy whose name I forget is because Kavanaugh has opined that a sitting president cannot be deposed or subjected to a lawsuit, which means more to Trump than whether abortion is outlawed or not. The only reason Trump is "against abortion" is because that position plays well to Evangelicals and he needs their support.
This whole confirmation process is Kabuki theater, and the only value it has is raising the profile of potential Democratic candidates in 2020 like Booker and Harris.
Do I believe that birth control pills are "abortion inducing"? Some, but not all. Some pills prevent pregnancy by preventing fertilization from happening. Those pills are not abortifacients, because they prevent an embryo (a baby at the earliest stage of life) from being formed. But RU486 IS an abortifacient, because it does allow fertilization, but prevents implantation from taking place. So an embryo (a baby at the earliest stage of life) does form, but is not allowed to implant in the mother, and is then rejected, flushed out. I think the question is, does the birth control pill in question allow fertilization to take place, or not?
Now for the next question, should companies be allowed to choose not to cover birth control? While I understand that there would be a lot more abortions if birth control were not allowed, or not available (and I could talk about the reasons why that is the case), I don't think that companies should be required to cover it. I believe that this would fall under the umbrella of a health insurance package, which is meant to help employees stay healthy, or treat diseases or illnesses, or make sure that hospital stays are covered if employees are injured.
The trouble with including abortion or birth control in a health insurance package is that it treats pregnancy like a disease, and it also seems to treat birth control as an absolute necessity. Pregnancy is NOT a disease, and just as abortion is an elective surgery, birth control is something that is optional, not a necessity for maintaining good health. Some people seem to forget that abstinence is an option too. You can choose to have sex and use birth control if you so choose, but you can also choose to abstain from having sex outside of marriage, or at times when pregnancy could result, or just choose not to have sex until you're ready to have a baby.
It doesn't work that way. Get on the SCOTUS, reverse Roe v. Wade? One hears a case that's come up through the appellate courts, and that has to be heard in the context of the facts and merit of its case, and it has to be heard in the context of prior legal precedent.
IMHO anyone who thinks a SCOTUS pick will immediately protect or overturn a ruling either a) doesn't understand the system or b) betrays how highly politicized their regard of the SCOTUS is.
@CopperCicada You're correct in that the courts cannot act on their own; they can only address those cases that come before them.
That being said, claiming that SCOTUS decisions aren't political is fatuous. Kavanaugh was vetted by the Federalist Society, and his name presented to Trump along with Amy Coney Barrett and another guy whose name I forget. And if Kavanaugh is confirmed, it will be along party lines. If you don't think Kavanaugh was selected because he will overturn Roe if given the opportunity, you're delusional. Trump received massive support from the Evangelical community, more than George W. Bush (an actual Evangelical) did, because they were confident that he would nominate anti-abortion SCOTUS justices.
If Hillary Clinton was president and there was a Democratic Senate majority, we'd be watching the confirmation process for a justice that everyone would know was committed to preserving Roe. So both sides are treating the SCOTUS as a political football. My solution for this is to require a super-majority for confirmation. All justices would have to be palatable to both sides, leading to people being nominated for their judicial expertise rather than how they will vote on a given issue.
@SimplyTracie Repeal the Hyde Amendment to allow federal funding for abortions, same as for other medical procedures.
Force the repeal of all TRAP laws, transvaginal ultrasound, and requirements for doctors to provide false, anti-abortion information to patients.
Hold crisis pregnancy centers to the same false advertising restrictions imposed on other businesses.
Strengthen "access" by requiring clinics to be set up in all major cities as well as ensuring that patients in rural areas did not have to drive as far.
Eliminate waiting periods.
Prosecute people who blockade or picket abortion clinics under harsher anti-terrorism laws.
@SimplyTracie If any of those laws were challenged, the SCOTUS would have to render a decision. So that's how I'd rule if given the opportunity. Several of those have already come before the court, for example, the CPC ruling allowing false advertising was very recent.
I can't comment on a hypothetical because such a case could come before me in the event I find myself on the Supreme Court as a judge sometime in the future. So... yeah.
@SimplyTracie And... basically learned nothing because nothing of substance could be answered.
*Setting change to job interview room*
"We like your background and think it's perfect for this position. We just have a few questions. Can you tell us how you might handle a situation of a disgruntled employee who is harassing his/her team members?"
"Um... well, I can't comment on a hypothetical because such an issue might face me if I get this position."
@OldHippie I agree, it's ridiculous. The U.S. Supreme Court has basically been turned into a rubber stamp for whatever legislature confirm the justices. This could be remedied by requiring a super-majority for confirmation. It wasn't that long ago that justices were confirmed almost unanimously. This would prevent obvious partisan hacks from being nominated or confirmed, which is what we have now. Instead, justices would be confirmed based on their legal expertise.
Erwin Chemerinsky, the Dean of Berkeley Law, has argued in his book [i]The Case Against the Supreme Court[/i] that aside from a few landmark decisions, the court has been a conservative institution that mostly protected the powerful from the powerless.
@SimplyTracie for myself no but I believe need and circumstances would be the rule here for other women. I consider it to be living from the time of conception.
