President nominates Alito to Supreme Court - Page 3

HelloKitty22 · #31 11-01-2005, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Hellsyeah I'd like to know. You're right, I have no rights or freedom according to liberals. I guess it's more of a philosophical question as to what the marriage contract entails exactly. Do I think it should at minimum involve cooperative decision making or at least spousal notification in matters of reproduction? Yes. As a matter of public policy, is it a good idea for husbands to know that wives are aborting babies that they didn't know about? Again, I think yes.

Just because you're married doesn't mean you give up your right to make independent medical decisions. You think this covers "reproduction." Does that mean if you have a vasectomy your wife should be informed beforehand? or what if your wife wants to buy birth control pills? Should the pharmacist have to call you before he dispenses the pills? or what if you want to buy condoms? or viagra for that matter? Where does it stop? Being married does not mean you are the other person's keeper. You don't have the right to be notified of or to approve of your spouses medical choices.
Everyone has the right to make individual choices about their own medical care, even if their spouse doesn't agree with it. Do you want your wife to be able to supersede your decision not to have life saving medical treatment?
Obviously, it is the ideal that all couples would discuss their medical treatment and choices with each other regarless of whether it concerns reproduction or life saving treatment. But the fact is it is not the GOVERNMENT's place to force that discussion.
That is what all this stuff is about. Roe doesn't say abortion is good or morally right. It says the government shouldn't decide for a woman whether she should have one.

Rudey · #32 11-01-2005, 02:01 PM

A vasectomy, a condom, viagra, and birth control are all prior to the act of creating a baby.

That is such a silly argument that I can't believe it's endorsed by Sanrio.

Men have rights too. You liberals need to stop taking away our rights.

-Rudey

Quote:

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
Just because you're married doesn't mean you give up your right to make independent medical decisions. You think this covers "reproduction." Does that mean if you have a vasectomy your wife should be informed beforehand? or what if your wife wants to buy birth control pills? Should the pharmacist have to call you before he dispenses the pills? or what if you want to buy condoms? or viagra for that matter? Where does it stop? Being married does not mean you are the other person's keeper. You don't have the right to be notified of or to approve of your spouses medical choices.
Everyone has the right to make individual choices about their own medical care, even if their spouse doesn't agree with it. Do you want your wife to be able to supersede your decision not to have life saving medical treatment?
Obviously, it is the ideal that all couples would discuss their medical treatment and choices with each other regarless of whether it concerns reproduction or life saving treatment. But the fact is it is not the GOVERNMENT's place to force that discussion.
That is what all this stuff is about. Roe doesn't say abortion is good or morally right. It says the government shouldn't decide for a woman whether she should have one.

HelloKitty22 · #33 11-01-2005, 02:04 PM

They are all matters of "reproduction," the term used by ntsnake. And a zygote or fetus does not equal a baby.

hoosier · #34 11-01-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by moe.ron
Eh? Link please.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006618

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005843

Rudey · #35 11-01-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
They are all matters of "reproduction," the term used by ntsnake. And a zygote or fetus does not equal a baby.

Matters of reproduction then must include a bed, food and water. Wonderful thought.

And you can define a baby in any way you want and I can define it as I want. But of course you can't deal with a discussion on the topic of informing a co-creator so now you've tried to move it into some gray land discussion of what a baby is.

-Rudey

GeekyPenguin · #36 11-01-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006618

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005843

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3500603.pdf

Try again.

Kevin · #37 11-01-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...case&no=995272

That is the Farmer case we are talking about. It has nothing to do with pornography.

This Farmer case does:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ase&no=992200p

-- your citation was somewhat ambiguous

As to the 2nd Farmer case, he didn't really comment on "abortion = bad" so much as he showed respect for stare decisis. He said that the law was unconstitutional just as the previous one that SCOTUS had struck down for the same reasons. As far as the majority opinion concerning Roe, I've argued that all along -- the whole viability standard, and at that point, you're talking only about 1% or so of abortions that occur in this country.

HelloKitty22 · #38 11-01-2005, 02:16 PM

Actually I think the problem is in your definition of a co-creator. When two people conceive you haven't created anything other than an expectancy. You may believe, rightly, that a child is eventually going to be born but that doesn't mean a child will be born. Until the child is born, your rights don't vest. Your rights in an expectancy which hasn't vested can't supersede the rights of the mother, whether she is your wife or not, to individual autonomy.

GeekyPenguin · #39 11-01-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
This Farmer case does:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ase&no=992200p

-- your citation was somewhat ambiguous

As to the 2nd Farmer case, he didn't really comment on "abortion = bad" so much as he showed respect for stare decisis. He said that the law was unconstitutional just as the previous one that SCOTUS had struck down for the same reasons. As far as the majority opinion concerning Roe, I've argued that all along -- the whole viability standard, and at that point, you're talking only about 1% or so of abortions that occur in this country.

Given that I was discussing a previous PP case, it was hardly unambigious, particularly since it was mentioned earlier in the PP press release.

He wrote a concurring opinion becase he refused to endorse the policy of the Supreme Court, only to uphold it.

Rudey · #40 11-01-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
Actually I think the problem is in your definition of a co-creator. When two people conceive you haven't created anything other than an expectancy. You may believe, rightly, that a child is eventually going to be born but that doesn't mean a child will be born. Until the child is born, your rights don't vest. Your rights in an expectancy which hasn't vested can't supersede the rights of the mother, whether she is your wife or not, to individual autonomy.

Again, you have difficulty in addressing the issue so you keep moving to the gray zone of what a baby is.

That child would not be born without the father. The father is creating, conceiving, and making.

Whether it is a baby, a microwave, or an idea of a microwave, it is being created, conceived, and made.

Given that there is something being created, conceived, and made by two parties, it's something we have a right to know.

If there is no child coming, there is no need for an abortion. You can go home and watch cartoons.

-Rudey

Kevin · #41 11-01-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
Just because you're married doesn't mean you give up your right to make independent medical decisions. You think this covers "reproduction." Does that mean if you have a vasectomy your wife should be informed beforehand? or what if your wife wants to buy birth control pills? Should the pharmacist have to call you before he dispenses the pills? or what if you want to buy condoms? or viagra for that matter? Where does it stop? Being married does not mean you are the other person's keeper. You don't have the right to be notified of or to approve of your spouses medical choices.
Everyone has the right to make individual choices about their own medical care, even if their spouse doesn't agree with it. Do you want your wife to be able to supersede your decision not to have life saving medical treatment?
Obviously, it is the ideal that all couples would discuss their medical treatment and choices with each other regarless of whether it concerns reproduction or life saving treatment. But the fact is it is not the GOVERNMENT's place to force that discussion.
That is what all this stuff is about. Roe doesn't say abortion is good or morally right. It says the government shouldn't decide for a woman whether she should have one.

As Rudey said, those things are all beside the point. You are raising issues completely unrelated to the topic at hand -- whether or not a husband has the right of notification (note: he still doesn't get any decision making power, just notification) when his wife has an abortion.

I made a public policy argument stating that if his wife is a hoebag and gets preggers outside of the relationship, he is most likely being exposed (or runs a risk of being exposed) to STD's and the like.

Someone (maybe you?) made the argument that he might be abusive, and this might make him mad, to which I replied, she needs to get a TRO and a divorce if he's abusing her, not to mention seeking criminal charges. I think women that allow their husbands to beat them and their children are contributing to their children's abuse and should be held at least partially responsible (but that's another issue).

Let's stick to the issues that have already been raised without raising these ad absurdium hypotheticals.

Kevin · #42 11-01-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
Given that I was discussing a previous PP case, it was hardly unambigious, particularly since it was mentioned earlier in the PP press release.

He wrote a concurring opinion becase he refused to endorse the policy of the Supreme Court, only to uphold it.

And what does that prove? Do you see where I'm going with the suggestion that your potential argument here is weak at best? You're trying to read into his intent, his heart and soul, and what he would do given a hypothetical situation. In this situation, he respected settled law, he announced his respect for it even though he may personally have reservations. Personal reservations do not equal judicial opinions.

xo_kathy · #43 11-01-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelloKitty22
But the fact is it is not the GOVERNMENT's place to force that discussion.

Exactly.

Also, let's say hubby is screwing around on wifey. He gets an STD, he's exposing wifey - should he HAVE to tell his wife? Should the government force him to?

Is the fact that a baby is involved in ktsnake's earlier scenario of cheating wife the only reason to tell the husband? If the baby isn't his, why does he have the right to know?

WCUgirl · #44 11-01-2005, 02:36 PM

If the wife gets pregant by someone outside the relationship, how is it the husband's right to be notified? He wasn't the one who conceived the fetus in question.

Rudey · #45 11-01-2005, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xo_kathy
Exactly.

Also, let's say hubby is screwing around on wifey. He gets an STD, he's exposing wifey - should he HAVE to tell his wife? Should the government force him to?

Is the fact that a baby is involved in ktsnake's earlier scenario of cheating wife the only reason to tell the husband? If the baby isn't his, why does he have the right to know?

You're right.

In NY, when that man was spreading AIDS up and down the state and health officials and law enforcement got involved to stop it, they had no right nor reason to.

Except they did and stopped it. Seems like they had both right and reason.

-Rudey