It would be interesting to see the stats on this: - # of women who have an abortion without telling their spouse (i.e. # of women potentially affected by this type of ruling) - # of women reasonably fearful of repercussions should they notify their spouse of their intent (i.e. # of women adversely affected by this type of ruling)
Parental and spousal notification laws do not force a woman to keep her baby. they merely notify the other interested parties. If a woman is pregnant by a lover, as a husband, i think i'd like to be aware of that fact. If a woman, or a minor girl, is being abused by her husband or father, there are laws in place to protect her. this is not about intimidation- it's about restoring men, and parents, to their proper roles in decisions that affect them.
Requiring a spouse to be notified is a complicated issue. I don't think a woman should be forced to tell her husband she got pregnant, yet I do think that a HUSBAND, not a boyfriend, lover, or whatever else, does have a right if he is the father, but I don't think there's a test to determine who the father is before the baby is born. A woman cheating on her spouse isn't a legal matter no matter how much you feel you should know about it. A married deciding on the well-being of their child is.
hey basso, i agree, men have been persecuted for far too long. i believe men should rule the earth. i mean, as long as they are married to a woman and have children. oh, and they should be republican, tolerate gays and, um, root for the rockets.
Let's be clear about that phrase "keep the baby". Carrying the baby to term and then giving it up for adoption is not what we are talking about in this case. This is an issue involving a woman's right to have an abortion. So if a woman refuses to tell her husband about the pregnancy and then seeks an abortion and is denied, how is that not forcing her to stay pregnant? In addition, the phrase "restoring men, and parents, to their proper roles in decisions that affect them" is another phrase I would like clarification on. What are these "proper roles"? Who decides what these proper roles are? It sounds a lot like you are condoning legislating morality from the bench here. Abortion has been deemed by the Supreme Court to fall under privacy as a fundamental right. That is an individual right, not one that can be superseded by a spousal relationship. The government must show a sufficient purpose as why that right is being infringed upon. In that case, they clearly did not. You can argue that you do not support the idea that abortion should afll under privacy, but it is settled law at this point.
BTW, starting a war of aggression is a BIG DEAL. causing the death of 2000 and counting American soldiers is a big deal. Causing the death of untold Iraqi citizens but even the US military admits 25,000 is a big deal. Losing trust in the eyes of ally and enemy alike for starting a war for reasons that turned out not to be true is a big deal. Don't try revisionist history, Bush and Chaney used the WMD's, the picture of mushroom clouds over the US as need to invade Iraq. Articles and speeches on this are too numerous state otherwise. If Bush was misled by intelligence reports, we need to know that. That would be something that needs to be corrected. We can't go invading countries based on bad intel. That's huge, and every American should want to know the truth. Bush lovers would have their boy exonerated. If how ever Bush deceived the American public by either falsifying or exaggerating the evidence and 55% of Americans now believe he should be held responsible for lying to the American public. Republicans ask yourselves, would you be happy if a democrat lies to America so he could start a war? Would you not want to know the truth? Every American should be screaming at the top of their lungs to know one way or the other. If a president, any president of any party is allowed to lie to the American public in order to START A WAR, and not be held accountable, do we even live in a democracy?
i would argue that, as a matter of fact. roe is bad law, not because i have a religious based objection to abortion, although i do generall have a moral objection, but because it superimposes federal standards on all jurisdictions. although i heartily, nay, lustfully, suppport gay marriage, i do not believe that it should be imposed by judicial fiat. let's let the "laboratories of the states" work the issue out themselves and then, to paraphrase trent lott, perhaps we wouldn't be havin' all this trouble we've benn havin' with abortion...
The Supreme Court has ruled that criminalizing abortion is a violation of privacy which is a fundamentally protected right, so the federal standard that it superimposes on the states is the constitution.
I believe that in some circles, even professional ones, this has been described a r-e-a-c-h-i-n-g. Does the child have no right to privacy--- err, Life?
i didn't even get through page 1 and i knew exactly where this bad-boy thread was headed. and that was a gnarly post by andy. gnarly, i say.
Bottom line, if was reversed, and men had babies a: a man would never have to ask his wife’s permission to have an abortion b: not only would abortion be legal, but probably be government subsidized.
Maybe you haven't been reading much here lately, Major. basso's the worst of the lot, hands down. He hasn't engaged in a "real debate" outside of directly received talking points in over a year. As it turns out, he winds up being the most intellectually dishonest poster on the board. The Rice babies work slogans; basso works a darker shade of McCarthyism. He used to seem to argue ideas, yeah. But in the last year it's been slanderous accusations of terrorist sympathising mixed with bizarre, incongruently elitist, weirdly effete cutesy crap. "iRaq because it reminds me of iMacs" comes to mind, but the French quotes are way dorkier. And the direct implication that if you oppose Bush you support terror is the living end. basso is an ******* sure, but worse he's a blight on what this country's supposed to stand for. I wish like hell he'd stick to Jorge's Rush worship (Libpigs!!! Maybe you didn't hear me... I said LIBPIGS!!!). That stuff's a joke. basso's not. He's a legitimate enemy of Democracy, America and everything this country is supposed to stand for. The difference, of course, between me saying that about him and him saying that about me is that when I say it it's actually true. If there's a real conservative out there anywhere to debate with, I'm right here (mostly lurking) waiting. I miss arguing this stuff honestly. But there isn't any way I'm doing it with someone who calls me an Osama lover every time I beat his ass in an argument.
