CNN: Abortion parental-notice law repealed

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And your point is...............?

my point on this remark was that even if roe v. wade was overturned, it would not affect NH's rights to legalize abortion in the same manner as they have now that they repealed that law that this thread is about.

LOL, all laws are that way, and the fact that you don't understand it just proves your naiveite. Any time we as a people outlaw something or allow something it is a value judgment that we are making about the action. Heck, by your reasoning here the Civil Rights movement should not have moved into the south because they were "invoking" their own personal beliefs on others who didn't agree.:doh:

see, this is where i disagree. many laws are made on logical thought processes with very basic assumptions. in fact, thats how our legal world is supposed to work. but you state that you have a "belief" in something. that belief (which is that a fetus is human being with rights) is not readily provable. You can have that belief, i do not discourage that, but others do not have that belief. And the law could not find that that belief was a logically sound one.

So, its not accurate to say that all our laws are based on someone's beliefs. We can base laws on beliefs like "murder is bad," but i think we can also come up with reasons that we believe murder is bad and we can logically justify saying that murder should be a crime.

as of right now, we cannot logically conclude some of the beliefs you and others have regarding abortion. and our laws should not be based on beliefs that we cannot logically recognize.

I understand that this is a very sensitive subject to people, but the American legal system is not based on beliefs that cannot be supported. If you can support them, i say do it. by all means. I'm just responding to those that re-hash the same argument over and over again and think the result will change. a new argument on abortion might be much better received.

and on the death penatly thing, my point is that people seem much more vocal about abortion than the death penalty in general. i dont know that that is specifically the case with you, but it seems to me that if as much energy went into doing something about the death penalty as does with abortion there might actually be results for those that feel like you do. And it might be quite gratifying to a just cause.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I guess being called a two year old is not something that was meant to offend me.

I guess you're not calling me a moron b/c you disagree with me either. my bad.

Grow some.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Grow some.

i apologize. you guys are right about everything, i'm wrong about everything.

to be honest, i wasnt so much offended by the comments, but i was just pointing out thefact that it just makes those arguments worse.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

As for Roe v. Wade, I recommend you read it, because you do not appear to understand it was not a case that granted a "right". It has been, since, but not by the Supreme Court, interpreted to say that, but that's not what it said.

Actually, I have read the case... I have also read planned parenthood v. casey. And the RIGHT to privacy was found to include the right to an abortion for women. so, i'm not sure what you think it says, but that's where abortion law stands today.

[AsburySkinsFan]

my point on this remark was that even if roe v. wade was overturned, it would not affect NH's rights to legalize abortion in the same manner as they have now that they repealed that law that this thread is about.

When I said "your point is" I meant that Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with this discussion, it is about parental rights. You are the one making this into an viability Roe v. Wade debate. The precedent that this repeal sets would allow for questioning whether or not parents need to approve any or all medical proceedures on their children.

see, this is where i disagree. many laws are made on logical thought processes with very basic assumptions.

You are free to disagree, but then you're also free to be wrong. We base our laws on certain assumptions, i.e. presuppositions that we bring to the debate, and these are not shared equally by all people in all places, much less all people in this country.

Heck, "all people are created equal" is a presupposition in and of itself and its not logical it is instead based on philosophy and other influences.

I understand that this is a very sensitive subject to people, but the American legal system is not based on beliefs that cannot be supported.

They can be supported, its just that you refuse to acknowledge the things we use to support them.

but it seems to me that if as much energy went into doing something about the death penalty as does with abortion there might actually be results for those that feel like you do. And it might be quite gratifying to a just cause.

So I shouldn't do both?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually, I have read the case... I have also read planned parenthood v. casey. And the RIGHT to privacy was found to include the right to an abortion for women. so, i'm not sure what you think it says, but that's where abortion law stands today.

Children do not share the same rights as adults especially from their parents, nor are they held to the same account.

[AsburySkinsFan]

i apologize. you guys are right about everything, i'm wrong about everything.

to be honest, i wasnt so much offended by the comments, but i was just pointing out thefact that it just makes those arguments worse.

Well, it came across like you were pouting.

'sall good.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

When I said "your point is" I meant that Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with this discussion, it is about parental rights. You are the one making this into an viability Roe v. Wade debate. The precedent that this repeal sets would allow for questioning whether or not parents need to approve any or all medical proceedures on their children.

Well, you have competing rights between parental rights and abortion rights. So, you may be onto something there. That being said, it has been held that requiring minors to have parental consent is VALID. The only problem is that it is the state's choice whether or not to invoke these, AND the state cannot preclude abortions that would save the mother's life, which was the reason this law was repealed.

You are free to disagree, but then you're also free to be wrong. We base our laws on certain assumptions, i.e. presuppositions that we bring to the debate, and these are not shared equally by all people in all places, much less all people in this country.

my point is that those presumptions usually can be supported with logical reasons for why the law is for the good of society.

Heck, "all people are created equal" is a presupposition in and of itself and its not logical it is instead based on philosophy and other influences.

True, but that too can be at least argued to have a rational connection to a legitimate state interest in keeping the country free and protecting everyone who rightfully lives here. (please do not go into immigration with me on this comment, i could not find another way to phrase it).

They can be supported, its just that you refuse to acknowledge the things we use to support them.

Well, science cannot support the idea that a fetus can survive before the third trimester right now, as i understand it. and that is what the law based it's decision on. I think that if you could show that that was not correct through science, then you would have a reason to overturn at least part of Roe v. Wade. But that is never an argument you hear from pro-lifers. There is no argument that an embryo could survive, that i know of anyways. If I heard that argument, I might be moved by it, honestly. I am just not moved by the same argument over and over.

So I shouldn't do both?

I suppose you can. The point was that re-hashing the same argument over and over again is not going to change things. The law is where it is now and it does not change in the face of the same arguments. If you had new or different arguments as to why abortion should be changed, that I think would be more gratifying to everyone. Just stating the reasons that you believe abortion is wrong, which are the same reasons that the SC rejected, does not further your cause. That was my point.

The law will not change just b/c there are new justices on the SC even. Justice Roberts actually said that the abortion issue is precedent and need not be disturbed now. They took a new case on partial birth abortion, because it was a different case and argument. This is how the legal system works.

I am not disparaging your beliefs or even your conviction on this issue, I am saying that the old arguments lost and the outrage over the decisions on them is not going to get you anywhere. That's why I say we should move on from the abortion issue for the good of everyone. I will qualify that by saying that if you have some new argument on it, I think it should be heard. But the old arguments will not suddenly be accepted by the courts.

Finally, I have been very careful in my comments not to insult anyone's views on this issue, but it SEEMS to me that I have not gotten the same treatment in this thread.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Children do not share the same rights as adults especially from their parents, nor are they held to the same account.

Just see my post above. I think you are right on that one, in general. but the state cannot limit the ability to have an abortion to save the mother's life, which is why this bill was actually repealed.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just see my post above. I think you are right on that one, in general. but the state cannot limit the ability to have an abortion to save the mother's life, which is why this bill was actually repealed.

No its not, it may be why they "said" it was repealed, but that's not the reason.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No its not, it may be why they "said" it was repealed, but that's not the reason.

well, i just know what they said. if there is some conspiracy here, i have no idea. but they don't have any OBLIGATION under the law to keep it in either, so why not just say why they repealed it?

Is there reason to think they are making that up? Seriously asking.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well, you have competing rights between parental rights and abortion rights. So, you may be onto something there.

And if you read through the comments in this thread that is what they all to my knowledge (not going to re-read them all) have been about. There has been no argument regarding the legitimacy of Roe, that's the whole point, and was the source of my irritation earlier.

my point is that those presumptions usually can be supported with logical reasons for why the law is for the good of society.

By Western secular logic, and not all logic is the same because our logic relies on the presuppositions that we bring to any encounter, and those presuppositions vary with each person.

Well, science cannot support the idea that a fetus can survive before the third trimester right now, as i understand it.

Which is where I believe that the Pro-Life group has played by the rules of science etc, instead of making religious arguments. In that way they've been playing someone else's game and by their rules.

I suppose you can. The point was that re-hashing the same argument over and over again is not going to change things.

Sure it will, just like rehashing the same points over and over changed them the first time.

I am not disparaging your beliefs or even your conviction on this issue, I am saying that the old arguments lost and the outrage over the decisions on them is not going to get you anywhere.

And this is where we will disagree.

Finally, I have been very careful in my comments not to insult anyone's views on this issue, but it SEEMS to me that I have not gotten the same treatment in this thread.

Sorry for my earlier abruptness, it was just discouraging to be so completely diverted off topic, first by saying that this whole issue was settled when it obviously is not, and then the whole name calling thing.

[AsburySkinsFan]

well, i just know what they said. if there is some conspiracy here, i have no idea. but they don't have any OBLIGATION under the law to keep it in either, so why not just say why they repealed it?

Is there reason to think they are making that up? Seriously asking.

Votes and money.

[techboy]

Finally, I have been very careful in my comments not to insult anyone's views on this issue, but it SEEMS to me that I have not gotten the same treatment in this thread.

You're right. Art has insulted you. I wouldn't take it personally, though, as this seems to be standard procedure for him when debating an issue. He argues (sounding much like an attorney ) that he helped write the rules, and that the rules say that we can insult the ideas, and not the person, and so he is in the right, and that may be, but I've never seen the practical distinction.

On the other hand, complaining of it avails little, and in fact, can weaken others' perception of your argument (as would shooting back in kind), so I'd suggest just letting it go.

As to the matter of precedent, you are of course correct that precedent holds heavy sway, but there are a few cases where the court has overturned precedent. Brown v. Board is just the most obvious example, and I don't think the case could be made that any new or better arguments were introduced there. Sometimes, for whatever reason, the Court reverses itself, though it is of course, very reluctant to do so, just as it is reluctant even to set new precedent for similar reasons (see the recent pledge case where rather than rule on the substance of the case, they took an "out" and found Neudenow not to have any standing).

Encouraging the Pro-life forces in this is the fact that I have read many legal scholars (across the spectrum of abortion) offer the opinion that Roe v. Wade is one of the absolute worst, most convoluted rulings from a legal point of view, that has ever been made by the Court.

It is perhaps, then, not surprising, that this would give hope to many that the Court might correct that.

Finally, you are being naive to the reality of politics and Judicial appointments. While I would personally find it ideal if the Supreme Court were made up of the 9 most esteemed legal scholars in the land, who decided cases only on their merit, and not on politics, that is clearly not the case. (And even there, I could be accused of being political by the Left, who do not hold that Strict Constructionism is a good thing).

The simple fact of the matter is that if enough Pro-Life justices are placed on the Court, they will reverse Roe v. Wade, regardless of precedent, because the Court is more political than it ideally should be. This is sad, but a fact of life, and people of all political stripes must use it to their advantage, because if they don't, their opponents certainly will.

Even this does not ignore precedent completely, of course. Many in the Pro-Life movement were extremely upset with a recent state law (in South Dakota, I think), banning all abortions, because it was inteded to get to the Supreme Court, and it is likely that even with the addition of Roberts and Alito, there would not be enough votes yet to overturn Roe, and as such, such a case would only re-inforce current precedent.

[techboy]

And if you read through the comments in this thread that is what they all to my knowledge (not going to re-read them all) have been about. There has been no argument regarding the legitimacy of Roe, that's the whole point, and was the source of my irritation earlier.

Uh, yeah. Until me just now. Sorry.