Exit polls or final results: where's truth?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:29:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Exit polls or final results: where's truth?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Exit polls or final results: where's truth?  (Read 6191 times)
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2004, 03:24:26 AM »


The point is that the law would never have been passed if it wasn't for the political gains involved.
this isn't about the pregnent woman making a choice not to carry the potential child to full term.

Actually it is. The difference between your nose-punching example is that there is not a large ideological movement dedicated to recognize noses as human beings.

Beet,

There are several issues here.

First, who should decide on major matters of public policy?  Lets be honest, the Supreme Court in Roe and Doe legislated from the bench.  An 'emenation' from a 'penumbra'?  Absurd!

Second, the majority opinion in this country is that abortion should be permissible in some, but not all, circumstances.  The pro-abortion forces are unwilling to accept any restrictions!

Third, if abortion on demand can be written into the Constitution by a group of overzealous judges, then the Constitution becomes a blank check for the judiciary.  This scares the hell out of me.
Logged
Andrew
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2004, 01:15:54 PM »

If those in Congress who supported this law were really concerned about women's reproductive rights, the law would have been worded differently.  Instead, the law is clearly designed to designate a fetus as a human being.  We all know why.

It was an obvious (and successful) attempt to capitalize on a high-profile murder case to advance a particular ideology.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2004, 01:55:31 PM »

If those in Congress who supported this law were really concerned about women's reproductive rights, the law would have been worded differently.  Instead, the law is clearly designed to designate a fetus as a human being.  We all know why.

It was an obvious (and successful) attempt to capitalize on a high-profile murder case to advance a particular ideology.

Okay, then, why didn't the Democrats offer amendments to change the language and why didn't they draft their own bill.
Logged
Andrew
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2004, 07:21:19 PM »

They did (SA 2858):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:1:./temp/~r1084leZT9:e12293:
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2004, 08:44:07 PM »

I get nothing except that the site has been deleted.
Logged
Andrew
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2004, 10:14:31 PM »

Sorry about that.  Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/

Search for HR 1997.

Click <[H.R.1997.EH]>.

Click <Bill Summary & Status>.

Click <Amendments>.

Click <S.AMDT.2858>.

Click <S3125>.

Click <S3125> on the next page.

Read.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2004, 10:29:09 PM »

Here is part of the text:

``(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution--
            ``(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
        which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized
        by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such
        consent is implied by law;
            ``(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the
        pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
            ``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.


Now, I'm very sorry, but this doesn't look like an act to prohibit voluntary termination.
Logged
Andrew
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 561
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2004, 11:05:11 PM »

Senator Feinstein had this to say when presenting this amendment:

"But here is where it gets more complicated. The House bill before us, the DeWine bill, now takes the position in law that life begins at conception. This, then, involves this bill directly into a woman's right to choose--an issue that need not be raised and should not be raised in this debate.

"Although the text of the amendment itself technically provides an exception for abortion [as J. J. noted above], experts on both sides of this issue agree the language in the bill will clearly place into Federal law a definition of life that will chip away at the right to choose as outlined in Roe v. Wade. I hope to make that crystal clear as I go on.

"The Philadelphia Inquirer in its editorial yesterday put it succinctly by saying:

" 'If passed and signed, as promised by President Bush, the Federal law would be the first to recognize unborn children at any stage of development as victims with legal rights separate from those of their mothers. ..... It's so easy to see how a Federal unborn victims law, coupled with unborn victims laws in 29 States, will form the basis of a new legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that gives women the right to terminate certain pregnancies. If a fetus who dies during a crime is a murder victim, then isn't abortion murder?' "

The amendment she suggested would have used phrases such as, "protection of pregnant women," rather than, "protection of unborn children."

Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2004, 11:24:00 PM »

Senator Feinstein had this to say when presenting this amendment:

"But here is where it gets more complicated. The House bill before us, the DeWine bill, now takes the position in law that life begins at conception. This, then, involves this bill directly into a woman's right to choose--an issue that need not be raised and should not be raised in this debate.

"Although the text of the amendment itself technically provides an exception for abortion [as J. J. noted above], experts on both sides of this issue agree the language in the bill will clearly place into Federal law a definition of life that will chip away at the right to choose as outlined in Roe v. Wade. I hope to make that crystal clear as I go on.

"The Philadelphia Inquirer in its editorial yesterday put it succinctly by saying:

" 'If passed and signed, as promised by President Bush, the Federal law would be the first to recognize unborn children at any stage of development as victims with legal rights separate from those of their mothers. ..... It's so easy to see how a Federal unborn victims law, coupled with unborn victims laws in 29 States, will form the basis of a new legal challenge to Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that gives women the right to terminate certain pregnancies. If a fetus who dies during a crime is a murder victim, then isn't abortion murder?' "

The amendment she suggested would have used phrases such as, "protection of pregnant women," rather than, "protection of unborn children."



There can be no question that life begins at conception.  There can be substantial question that this life is protected under the Constitution.  Obviously, there are numerous live things, a cow, a dog, a pig, an ameba, that are not protected by the US Consititution.  None of the "live" things, are protected.

Does this law infringe on the ability of a legally competent woman to voluntarily terminate her pregency?  No.  It specifically exempts that.

You've raised my curiosity.  Would a law stating that only a physician liscensed to practice in a jurisdiction could perform an abortion, be a law limiting a woman's ability to have an abortion?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2004, 11:36:14 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Carl,

I tend to agree with you. While Roe is not the first or only case where the Court has interpreted questionably, it fits into a broader pattern which was too activist, and also that scares me as well. The Court will inevitably make some law, but it should use its power as conservatively as possible and act as a check on the other branches. However, I do support upholding the case law that has already been decided in the past under most circumstances.

On the matter of restricting abortion rights, neither side is willing to accept many compromises, because they feel it would be "appeasement" and lead to worse things down the road. Hence, Kerry's vote against the Laci Petersen law, which he would have voted for if not for the abortion issue, & conservative opposition to stem cell research. In practice, limited restrictions were held up by the Court and have been enacted in most states. Both sides should focus on policies to reduce abortion, a shared goal, and where there are many policy areas they should both be able to agree on.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2004, 01:28:57 AM »

I love when lawyers argue that a law implicitly allows what it explicitly disallows.
Logged
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,653


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2004, 02:24:35 PM »

I love when lawyers argue that a law implicitly allows what it explicitly disallows.

All clauses excluded, shall be deemed included

The "contract" from Phanton of the Opera
Logged
Shira
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,858


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2004, 02:57:34 PM »

I love when lawyers argue that a law implicitly allows what it explicitly disallows.

All clauses excluded, shall be deemed included

The "contract" from Phanton of the Opera

As to your map the 47/50 is misleading. It should be something like 7/10 or even 5/8.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2004, 03:06:56 PM »

As to your sig, I'm pretty sure they quit four years ago.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.226 seconds with 13 queries.