posted on October 31, 2005 01:04:18 PM new
Rusty, she should then get a divorce and is free to do as she chooses.
There are living wills that can address the doctor.
Mingotree, we have been talking about marriage, if she is married she cannot do as she chooses and that I pointed out, I could care less if she is not married.
Your idea of marriage and mine are radically different. I have been blessed with finding somone that is both independent in thought and willing to discuss things of this nature. Just as I would discuss things with her.
Happy and Healthy as Rusty put it.
I don't think Roe vs Wade will go away, well I hope not. But I can see states putting restrictions on abortion in each state.
posted on October 31, 2005 01:06:48 PM new
Isnt the fetus made up of cells from both parents. Thou I believe its the womens choice in the end. I believe the husband should be notified. If hes unhappy with her choice, He should be able to drop the B**ch like a hot potato ...No strings attached. (No money, No house, nothing)
Since this is something that only the more liberal on this board can answer.
Do gay's need consent from there partners for abortions or Vasectomies.
Amen,
Reverend Colin http://www.reverendcolin.com
posted on October 31, 2005 01:29:54 PM new
Fenix, I am not aware of any constitutional provision which states that a man "owns" his wife or that all of her decisions need to be pre-approved by him.
Even the bible quote that a wife should submit to her husband is often misquoted as meaning that a woman's judgements must be supervised by their husband.
However, as in the bible quote, it is only valid if the husband is following God's law.
So my interpetation of an legal requirement to notify the husband would pertain as well.
If the husband and wife were mature individuals who understand the need for such laws, obtaining consent would not be a problem. Unfortunely the world is not populated with enough mature individuals.
As for the argument of whether a woman should have to tell her husband if she is having an abotion... for me it would depend upon the circumstances. Especially when you consider that many women chose not have an abortion, even against the father's protest. And then the same women insist upon the man paying child support.
Some women want it both ways.
Unfortunately, pregnancy is due to the actions of TWO people. Both parties have a responsibility, but in this case the woman is ultimately responsible for the outcome.
I don;t want any man to have a say over what happens with my body. But then, I guess I'm a prude because I would not just let "any" man have "his way" with my body.
posted on October 31, 2005 02:09:21 PM new
::However, as in the bible quote, it is only valid if the husband is following God's law.
So my interpetation of an legal requirement to notify the husband would pertain as well.
If the husband and wife were mature individuals who understand the need for such laws, obtaining consent would not be a problem. Unfortunely the world is not populated with enough mature individuals.::
So in other words, at least in your definition, a judge that felt that a woman should be required by law to obtain their husbands permission to obtain an abortion would not be a strict constitutionalist and would, by republican definition be considered an "activist judge".
I wonder how many others will be willing to be so open and direct in their evaluation.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 02:11:11 PM new
:o gay's need consent from there partners for abortions or Vasectomies.::
Colin - Why is it that you believe that liberals might think that personal liberties and domain are determined by sexual preference?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on October 31, 2005 03:07:44 PM new
--So in other words, ... a judge that felt that a woman should be required by law to obtain their husbands permission to obtain an abortion would not be a strict constitutionalist and would, by republican definition be considered .
Fenix, I hardly think that such a judge should be called an "activist judge" by anyone. I might call them ignorant of the law if they are basing their decision on the Constitution of the United States.
Perhaps they were ruling on a specific state law, but I am not aware of ANY constitutional law which requires spousal consent. (I'm sure if there is one, SOMEONE here can find it for us, lol)
posted on October 31, 2005 03:12:56 PM new
There is not. The thing is that Alito asserted that it SHOULD be. That is the reason that I find it strange that so many are referring to him as a strict constitutionalist/constructionist when they refer to any judge that asserts "liberal" opinions into law as Judicial Activists.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 1, 2005 06:52:00 AM new
Judge Alito's most controversial opinion may be his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he voted to uphold the constitutionality of a spousal notification requirement for abortions.
The three-judge panel in Casey unanimously upheld several abortion restrictions adopted by the Pennsylvania Legislature, including a parental-notification requirement and a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could obtain an abortion.
While both policies may restrict the availability of abortion, neither constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to abort her fetus, as the Supreme Court subsequently held.
Where Judge Alito differed with his colleagues was on whether it was an "undue burden" to require married women to notify their husbands prior to obtaining an abortion. This requirement was subject to several exceptions and was easily circumvented.
After a careful reading of the available Supreme Court precedent, Judge Alito concluded that this spousal notification was a constitutionally permissible limitation on a woman's right to an abortion. His opinion gives no hint as to whether he would personally support spousal notification, or other regulations. This is not a judge's role, he explained: "Whether the legislature's approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether [the law] meets constitutional standards." This is the hallmark of judicial restraint.
Placing Judge Alito's Casey dissent in the context of his other abortion-related decisions further demonstrates his commitment to law over predetermined policy outcomes.
In Planned Parenthood v. Farmer (2000), he joined the court in striking down New Jersey's ban on partial-birth abortion as inconsistent with prevailing Supreme Court precedent. Five years earlier, he joined a majority opinion that deferred to an executive branch agency's interpretations of federal law, even though doing so meant blocking a state from limiting government funding of abortions.
In short, his record is neither that of a "pro-life" or "pro-choice" judge, but of a "pro-law" judge.
posted on November 1, 2005 07:03:21 AM new
Linda - can you please explain why it is the republicans want the government to be a small as possibile yet still large enough to fill the bedroom? I do not understand the thinking. Youy want government have minimal interference with business practices, personal finance, and property but when it comes to how any individual lives their life itself, you seem to want it strictly regulated. How do you reconcile those views?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 1, 2005 07:03:22 AM new
This is the person the GOP wants, Meirs was President Bush's offering for moderation and as you can see not enough on both sides liked her.
With recent develpoments, he had no choice but to pick a hardline conservative.
Alito may turn out to be a good judge on the bench.
posted on November 1, 2005 07:09:27 AM new
Miers was not a moderate offering. The only thing we knew about her was that she was converted to Christianity by the ultra-conservative whackjob founder of Focus on the Family (and yes - I think he is crazy and dangerous, not because he is a Christian but because he a power hungry zealot) and that her life was ruled by her religion. How in the world do you consider that to be a moderate?
I realize that this is the current Fox News spin but they have a short memory span and seem to hope that their watchers do too.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 1, 2005 08:52:58 AM new
Ron - I agree.
------------
fenix - For the same reason our government says it's against the law to kill/murder other people. We don't allow that murder....and I don't believe we should be allowing this infant genocide either. That's how I reconcile it.
And limits being put on this 'abortion on demand' that's law now....can USE some changes....compromises. There are limits to most things in life.....this is no different imo.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 1, 2005 09:44:54 AM new
Linda - Are you really going to tell me that you refuse to answer basic questions like "Do you condone Lying to a Grand Jury" because I did not answer a question so obvious that I thought it was retorical, especially since by the time I returned to the thread you had obviously figured out the answer to your question and posted an article about Alito.
That's about the lamest excuse I have seen offered up here in days.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 1, 2005 09:51:10 AM new
Ron - how blond do you think I am that you think trying to describe someone influenced by Focus on the Family as being Moderate?
And BTW - the right didn't come after her because they thought she was a moderate - they came after her because there was no documented prof that she was a dyed in the wool ultra conservative and because when she spoke to the senators it became obvious that she was completely imcompetent to rule on constitutional issues.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 1, 2005 10:27:18 AM new
LOL...oh I SEE fenix. YOU are allowed not to be here 24/7 but I am not.
I answered your questions....but when you start with sarcasm in questions you already KNOW my answers to....I will ignore them. My choice. I figure after all these years of posting together, IF you haven't seen me state my position on lying....then it's NEVER going to sink in to your liberal brain.
And besides that...I did answer the subject of him lying....I said it hasn't been proven that he did lie. He has NOT been convicted of lying. Then you just wanted to keep hammering away at it like you always do.
Won't accept an honest anwer because it doesn't fit in with the distortions you speak about MY positions/MY thoughts/etc.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 1, 2005 10:59:15 AM new
Lt.Ray said:
[i]Perhaps they were ruling on a specific state law, but I am not aware of ANY constitutional law which requires spousal consent. (I'm sure if there is one, SOMEONE here can find it for us, lol)
fenix03
posted on October 31, 2005 03:12:56 PM
There is not. The thing is that Alito asserted that it SHOULD be. That is the reason that I find it strange that so many are referring to him as a strict constitutionalist/constructionist when they refer to any judge that asserts "liberal" opinions into law as Judicial Activists.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Linda_K
posted on November 1, 2005 06:52:00 AM edit
Judge Alito's most controversial opinion may be his partial dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he voted to uphold the constitutionality of a spousal notification requirement for abortions.
The three-judge panel in Casey unanimously upheld several abortion restrictions adopted by the Pennsylvania Legislature, including a parental-notification requirement and a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could obtain an abortion.
--------
So...at least we have cleared that issue up in this thread Alito, along with the other two Circuit judges WERE ruling on established PA law[/i].
Just because fenix wasn't aware of that PA law....doesn't mean she can attempt to put totally false information out about this nominee, Alito.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 1, 2005 12:14:10 PM new
Linda - maybe you should know more about what you are talking about. Alito was the DISSENTER on the decision.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Nov 1, 2005 12:20 PM ]
posted on November 1, 2005 12:21:45 PM new
::LOL...oh I SEE fenix. YOU are allowed not to be here 24/7 but I am not.::
What the hell are you talking about Linda? I said that I did not answer the question because I figured it was retorical since by the time I returned you had obviously already figured out what and who I was referring to.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on November 1, 2005 01:26:17 PM new
I do know what I'm talking about, fenix. It's the way you take what I actually say...and then twist it around in YOUR mind.
It's YOU who refuses to now admit this circuit court ruling was based on PA LAW....that you previous said wasn't true.
So...it appears to me you can't admit when you're proven wrong...so now you're choosing to go the liberal route and make snide/sarcastic remarks instead.
What a shame you've lowered yourself to what many liberal posters here do....try and defend your position with the crap...rather than sticking to the actual issue/subject/discussion itself. You disappoint me fenix. And I'm quite aware that won't mean JS to you.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on November 1, 2005 01:44:28 PM new
LInda - jump down off the horse linda and learn to read and and comprehend... I think you confuse yourself with all that bolding...
Lets try this again...
Lt.Ray said:
Perhaps they were ruling on a specific state law, but I am not aware of ANY constitutional law which requires spousal consent. (I'm sure if there is one, SOMEONE here can find it for us, lol)
PLease note the last part...
but I am not aware of ANY constitutional law which requires spousal consent.
THAT is what I was stating that there not one of.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
o gay's need consent from there partners for abortions or Vasectomies.::