The 2006 Weblog Awards Sometimes Free is too Expensive...
Google
 
Web janelake.blogspot.com
Please Donate to My Quest to Raise $5 Billion

« Home | Jane Lake and Mo' Money » | Jane Lake and Promptness » | Jane Lake and Rain! » | Jane Lake and Swearing! » | Jane Lake and Work » | Jane Lake and Blogs! » | Jane Lake and Abortion! » | Jane Lake and Children! » | Jane Lake on Steak! » | Jane Lake Begins Her Quest! »

Jane Lake and the Supreme Court


Lifetime jobs are like blackouts. Looting is inevitable. True unbiased judges are 1 in a million and no one really expects the Supreme Court justices to be unbiased. They just want them to see things the way they do.

Chief Justice Roberts is biding his time until Stevens is gone and then BOOM! There will be a conservative backlash in this country not seen since... well never seen before.

I think it is healthy for the country to oscillate between conservative and liberal regimes as it keeps us in balance and swings the pendulum back when it goes too far.

..and of course I think Roe V Wade should be overturned.

A conservative backlash, you say that it is a negative thing. That would imply that all of the decisions made by the courts over lets say ever have been slanted liberal. That isn't exactly a glowing report on a court that should be unbiased and strictly interpreting what the US Constitution says. The Justices are not supposed to interject their biases into their decisions, but we all know that every liberal Justice has been doing that for decades.

What I think is truly amazing is how when Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito were appointed and confirmed to the bench many of the liberals were beside themselves saying that they tide has turned on the US Supreme Court and that the republicans has taken over all branches of the government. Now we have a decision by the US Supreme Court and these same people aren't admitting that they are wrong, only cloating that they slammed Bush.

Before birth, when does a sperm and an egg become a ‘human being’? (After all, sperm, egg and even tumors are ‘alive’.) Find a truly definitive answer to this question and I will pick a side on the issue. Personally, I see abortion as morally wrong. However, this is because I believe that life begins when the brain begins to function because it ends when the brain ceases to function. Some believe it begins at the moment of conception. Others believe it begins at birth. Some believe life begins after the first trimester. Since there is not sufficient proof either way, all opinions are equally right or wrong. Therefore, should the state pick the most extremely conservative and force women into unsanitary and unsafe underground clinics or force them to carry children whom they cannot care for? Should the state take the most liberal and allow abortion up to the day of birth, therefore allowing the murder of a fully developed child? Or should they just pick a time in between? This way there is some since of sexual responsibility, yet women still have the control over their own bodies.

All solutions to this issue create some type of evil. There is no perfectly moral or good solution to the abortion issue. Those who are completely ‘for’ or ‘against’ abortion are fooling themselves to believe there is a just and moral solution.

It is not the state's right to proclaim when life begins. (Neither should it be the state’s right to decide when life should end.) Much less when it could cause harm to women everywhere and violate the Equal Protection clause of the constitution. Legality and personal morality are two different things. I don't believe abortion after the 6th week (first brain wave) is moral, but I would not demand that my beliefs become law.

So, the question is not for or against, but when life begins.

When an egg and sperm meet (conception), a unique DNA sequence is formed that will identify that "human being" for the rest of their lives. There is no grey issue that if this "human being" is not aborted, he/she will be born, grow, and live. A sperm alone will not and an egg alone will not. It is irrelevant when a soul or consciousness is there. The future is already cast in stone upon conception.

How about natural abortion?

'Almost all spontaneous abortions, (a.k.a. miscarriages), occur fairly early during pregnancy - typically before the 15th week of gestation. For reasons that are not entirely clear, "nature" realizes that the embryo or fetus is defective for genetic or other reasons. It is expelled from the woman's body and pregnancy ceases. Author Ruth Colker argues that "One might argue that the fetus is not potential life until nature has determined the true potentiality of that life by deciding whether to abort the fetus spontaneously. At a minimum, I would ague that a woman should have control over this period of spontaneous abortion (usually lasting until week 13 or 15 of the pregnancy) by deciding whether she wants to choose an elective abortion."'

So, I would not say that the future is cast in stone upon conception. Even God/nature changes his/her mind after conception.

Miscarriage is like getting hit by a bus. You have no control over it happening, but it doesn't invalidate your life before it happens. A life if only days old has value and some say, whether you choose to believe it or not, that parents will recognize their miscarried children in heaven, as the length of one's life does not matter.

Well, 1 in 4 pregnancies miscarry. The number may be even higher because early miscarriages are often never noticed. So, I wouldn’t call it like being hit by a bus, because it is simply a natural part of the pregnancy process. I just find it funny how a God or nature that functions as if life begins at conception would find it 'o.k.' to develop a gestation system where 1 in 4 'human beings' (in your belief) are aborted for minor genetic flaws. Seems like God or nature himself or herself doesn't even value these embryos as much as pro-life groups do.

Also, you say parents will recognize their miscarried children. What even they didn’t even know they miscarried because it was so early in term? What would this child look like? Still an embryo or does it somehow develop to look like an infant and then freeze that way for eternity until the parents arrive? Because with one in four being miscarried and many not knowing, I bet a lot of people are surprised to see an infant they never knew they miscarried 50 years ago when they get to heaven. HAHA

A swear to anything holy(I am not religious) but every Right to Lifer is an idiot.

I am NOT for abortion. I find it vaguely repugnant(I am a man, so I have no practical knowlege of it).

What I AM is pro-CHOICE. That a woman has a right to choose. it's a fundamental right as an American citizen and well as a human being. I sooo don't prescribed to the notion that at conception we have a thinking, unique individual. nothing is formed, the brain must have certain things going on with it before it has reached a certain developmental stage. it sure the heck isn't going on at conception, it has no brain to speak of. think of it this way, the brain is made up of millions and millions of cells to be full formed for cognitive thinking(even babies have it, just very underdeveloped right after birth). This is what separates us from animals. In terms of cellular growth, there is NO REAL(now i said REAL mind you) difference between a human fetus vs animal fetus(well lets say chimp fetus as it is our closest relative). Does it suck that a childs potential is taken away. Yes it is. Should this decision be taken lightly? of course not! yes I despise those women who are serial abortionist, those are horrible women. That fact is if the religious leaders would take a more active role in the lives of women regarding birth control(and not brand women as heretics for pre-marital sex) there would be alot less abortions. If they would not look at women as second class citizens(and please don't even say they don't, as a whole ALL religions do!)then this world may be a better place. Do I lay this all at the feet of religion, no. but does it have some responsbility, you bet it does. Religion is ultimate form of fascism. it truly does tell you how to live. Yes Yes most of it makes moral sense. i am not some anarchist and believe in nothing moral. but I find it hard to find faith in an institution which on one side of its face portrays the outrage of abortion but on the other feels free to kill people in the names of its religion, has priests running around sodomizing little boys and in the case of the catholic Church, makes more money than any single entity in the world.

yes yes i know the arguements, shouldn't make that decision for someone/something that cannot make it themselves , what makes it any different from murder etc etc. We can go round and round on it. but what it comes down to is this.

Do you want the government to decide the fate of YOUR life and body?? If so, please move to another country(ie Iran) that tells its women what it can and can't do in every aspect of their life. You'll probably find it more enjoyable(that was sarcastic, I KNOW you wouldn't).

Now let's just pretend here that abortion is now made illegal. YAY for those religious fanatics you guys finally won! Well what's next?? Well you know that women shouldn't wear the type of clothing they wear because it could lead to pre-marital sex and that could cause some young woman to become pregnant and since now abortion is illegal so should short skirts and tank tops. The main reason it became legal was the fact that many women were dying each year from illegal abortions. That some hack off the street were performing them.

let's see Jane as a 23 year old woman, would you like the fact that the government tells you what to wear? how to think? What you can and can't do with your life??? That is EXACTLY what is going on at this moment.

Ok ok before you flame, that was a bit exaggerated but it's not by much. How many times has censorship been tried? Once there is a foothold in any right to choose, you start down a path that is truly fascist. Period.

me, I enjoy my freedoms in America ALL of them.

I salute ALL people who give an opinion. truly i do, it invites discussion and debate. The great thing about America is that fact that it allows people to choose a side.

Ok off the Roe v Wade soapbox.

I find it interesting that ALL conservatives say that the Supreme Court has been liberal. How is that a bad thing?? let's just tick down some of their bigger decisions. Slavery is wrong..is that bad? Women actually have a vote in government. how is that wrong?? freedom of Speech upheld? how is that wrong..shoot go down the list of our laws and say how they are wrong???

People who say they are conservatives say that they would not change laws, that is what it means by conservative, are morally incomprehensible then. If you are saying that the Courts have been liberal you are correct as they are about change, about forming laws or repealing laws, taking away freedoms of individuals within America. Are you saying as a conservative you don't support that?

i could go on and on about this subject, ridiculous calling people conservatives and liberals, it provides an automatic dividing line which I really despise. This includes party denominations (Republican vs Democrat).

All of you that call yourselves conservatives, feel free but unless you don't want change and are happy with the status quo, you are a liberal:)

I apologize for rambling on, i write something then think of something else. I jumped around all over the place but these are strictly my opinions on the above subjects:)

Mr. Long-winded anonymous:

I know you know all the arguments, but pro-choice is pro-abortion. The statistics bare that out.

A 1 year old is also completely dependent on his/her parents for survival. Does that mean if parents CHOOSE they can kill there 1 year old child?

Not to defend anonymous because I really wish he or she had been more tactful and respectful of those with opposing views (just as I wish you had), but pro-choice is not pro-abortion anymore than pro-life is pro-poverty for mothers and child abuse for the children of unfit or immature mothers. Both are a side effect of a choice, not the maxim of the moral decision.

P.S. When are you going to reply to my 'much more logical' rebuttal? If you want you can just email me at jmwtampa@gmail.com.

HH:

The side effect of a choice is part of the choice. Poverty and child abuse can be dealt with as they are major problems with or without abortion. How do you deal with the side effect of death?

...and what was your 'much more logical rebuttal'?

The ‘more logical argument’ before anonymous comment that has gone unanswered.

If the side effect is part of the choice:

Pro-Life:
- Children being born of raped and incestuous women.
- Overpopulation of the DCF adoption agency.
- Poverty for woman who may have had a chance at a better life (try going to college as the soul provider for a baby).
- Increase in child abuse from unfit mothers.
- Increase in infant mortality by unfit mothers (How do YOU deal with death?).
- Increase in death of mothers who are not physically capable of bearing children and die during birthing (How do YOU deal with death?).
- Death of women by unsafe clinics and using primitive methods to induce miscarriage (like hangers)
- Increase in violent crime from emotionally scared adults who grew up in an unloving environment (read Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt).
- Massive strains on the welfare system.

So, how do you deal with all these problems? Including the violent death of infants by unfit mothers and the death of the mothers themselves?

Pro-Choice:
- Taking the life of an embryo or fetus that a minority of the population consider to be a human being.
READ MY PREVIOUS POST ABOUT THE MISCARRIAGE RATE
- Decrease in sexual responsibility.
- May be mentally harmful to young women.

I see litanies of evil for both, including death as a side effect of both. So, like I said earlier, the argument isn't the side effects, but when one believes a 'human being' begins.

HH:

On your previous post I have the following comment.

I believe in heaven age will have no relevance on how you view other people. They will all look perfect. An embryo will look as familiar to you as your own parents. That is the beauty and perfection of heaven. (IMHO)

Now to address your more recent points.

Pro-Life:
- Children being born of raped and incestuous women.

They are as beautiful and as wondrous as being the children of a loving couple.

- Overpopulation of the DCF adoption agency.

Demand will meet supply. You woul be surprised how many people would adopt a baby if they knew it would be otherwise aborted.

- Poverty for woman who may have had a chance at a better life (try going to college as the soul provider for a baby).

You misspelled "sole", but anyway, society will find solutions, and the billions of dollars (including tax dollars)currently funnelling into the abortion industry can be redirected.

- Increase in child abuse from unfit mothers.

Improvement in social services will provide help for those who need it and punishment for those who abuse their roles.

- Increase in infant mortality by unfit mothers (How do YOU deal with death?).

Human nature takes over when you become a parent. I think there would be less unfit mothers than you think. Humans were made to be parents.

- Increase in death of mothers who are not physically capable of bearing children and die during birthing (How do YOU deal with death?).

The one time abortion is acceptable is if the life of the mother is actually threatened. 99.9% of the time the best way to save the mother is deliver the baby, not abort it. Remember that viability is getting earlier and earlier.

- Death of women by unsafe clinics and using primitive methods to induce miscarriage (like hangers)

This was propaganda used by pro-aborts to get Roe v Wade passed. The actual numbers of deaths by those means were amazingly small.
More women actually die from hemmorraging as a result of abortions in "safe clinics".

- Increase in violent crime from emotionally scared adults who grew up in an unloving environment (read Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt).

You misspelled "scarred", but anyway, the answer is to help the environment to become more loving.

- Massive strains on the welfare system.

Already being dealt with by finding these people jobs and dealing with better training and support, so that they will not need welfare.

So, how do you deal with all these problems? Including the violent death of infants by unfit mothers and the death of the mothers themselves?

Answered above!

Pro-Choice:
- Taking the life of an embryo or fetus that a minority of the population consider to be a human being.
READ MY PREVIOUS POST ABOUT THE MISCARRIAGE RATE

Abortions occur at all 9 months of pregnancy. The majority of people consider the majority of abortions to be at a point that they consider it a human being. In other words, the vast majority believe abortion is taking the life of a human being.

- Decrease in sexual responsibility.

This increases disease and other harmful byproducts as well.

- May be mentally harmful to young women.

Enough said.

Let me start off by saying that correcting the spelling of others makes you look desperate for a point. I have been blogging for a LONG time, back before it was even 'cool'. If you want people to think you are grabbing at straws, correct their spelling. It is a sign of desperation.

Your comments:
'Demand will meet supply. You would be surprised how many people would adopt a baby if they knew it would be otherwise aborted.'

Talk about a pipe dream. Demand doesn't even meet supply now. Much less with an increase. There are currently 134,000 children in the U.S. foster care system. Where are the loving homes for them? When the demand for non-biological children even begins to come close to the CURRENT supply I will take your argument seriously.

'but anyway, society will find solutions, and the billions of dollars (including tax dollars)currently funnelling into the abortion industry can be redirected.'

You spelled ‘funneling’ incorrectly. ;) (Doesn’t that make me seem desperate to you?)
Anyway, your reply is 'we will find a way'. That is more of a hope than a solution. The problem is not supporting them financially. The issue is that they will forfeit the ability to better themselves. Every man alive has this ability. Yet we should limit it for women who get pregnant?

'Improvement in social services will provide help for those who need it and punishment for those who abuse their roles.'

Yeah, maybe in pro-life imaginary world of wonder! (Note that I used the proper name ‘pro-life’ rather than calling them the ‘embryo lovers’ or even ‘bible beaters.’ I would appreciate this same courtesy from you.) Every year, 2.5 million children are abused. Yet, in less than half of these cases are the parents ever brought to justice. With an overflowing court system the children are the ones who suffer.

'Human nature takes over when you become a parent. I think there would be less unfit mothers than you think. Humans were made to be parents.'

Tell that to the 1,300 INFANTS who die from child abuse related head trauma every year in the U.S. (Note: This is JUST head trauma.)

'This was propaganda used by pro-aborts to get Roe v Wade passed. The actual numbers of deaths by those means were amazingly small.
More women actually die from hemmorraging as a result of abortions in "safe clinics".'

Tell that to the 68,000-80,000 women who die every year from unsafe abortions according to the World Health Organization. I wouldn’t call the WHO a pro-choice propaganda group.
Also, you spelled ‘hemorrhaging’ wrong. (Now we are even.)

'the answer is to help the environment to become more loving.'

I would really be interested in hearing how a nation would go about doing this. I mean, pretty much all you have told me is that if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its butt when it lands. You have set unrealistic standards. Why would a woman who was unfit to be a mother and did not wish to raise a child seek help to be more loving? Even WITH abortion we have a large population of children being raised in broken homes, yet it is supposed to somehow get better once abortion is banned? I’d love to hear your miracle cure.

I gave you real problems and your rebuttal can be summed up in just a few words, "We'll fix it somehow." This is not a solution. It is a hope.

P.S. What about the 1 in 4 (or more) miscarriages as being a part of the gestation process designed by God? Are you saying that God has designed an unethical pregnancy system?

Also, I am sorry for my sarcastic tone, but the correction of my spelling has really decreased the civility of this debate as it was a personal attack and not a discussion of the points at hand.

HH:

I apologize for the spelling debacle. I was just having fun with you and trying to lighten a very serious topic. Obviously I am as imperfect a speller as the next person.

On the miscarriage issue, all I am saying is we do not know nor understand God's plan. I accept that God has his reasons for taking a life and it is not important for me to know what it is.

If I had all of the answers that you said are my "hopes" I would implement them and run the world, but I don't. What I do know is there are smarter people than myself that if focused could solve each of these issues.

They sure didn't have a problem created an atomic bomb when the best brains were commissioned to do it.

It is a matter of focusing our priorities on the right issues and understanding what the wrong issues are.

You see, that is the thing. We come up with great ideas as a society, but there is this idea of free will under which the government cannot dictate people's day-to-day lives. Creating an atom bomb would be just a spec of dirt to the monument of getting everyone to practice free will more ethically.

To be completely honest, if effective birth control were available to EVERYONE regardless of age, financial ability, geography, religious belief, or biological rejection thereof, I would be on the same side of the fence as you. However, it is not and therefore we must work within the parameters of reality and realistic goals. I would love to live in a world where abortion is not banned, but no longer needed because ALL people were able to have sexual relations with proper protection. Nonetheless, institutions like the Catholic Church and organizations like Focus on the Family have publicly denounced the use of contraceptives. For a nation that believes in the principles of these institutions, to control the birth rate either we are going to have to allow abortion, reinstate the chattel system where men own women (and women have to be virgins), or force people uphold an unrealistic standard of abstinence that never has existed and never will. In our world of personal freedom and personal rights, I see the only realistic option to be allowing abortion until we can honestly say that ALL people have access to proper contraceptives.

Abortion may seem evil, but it is the lesser of two.

Anyway, this will lead nowhere. Let's just agree to disagree so we can work on the important issues. What about an article about Sudan?

I can't agree to disagree. I like to have the last word.

I just want to let you know that you can have sexual activity without intercourse. It actually can be a lot of fun, and the chance of pregnancy...0%

That is not abstinence but works just as well.

HAHA I wont argue with you on psychology of the emotional attachment of sex vs. prolonged foreplay. I think most people in a mature and long-term relationship know better.

And my Sudan proposal?

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

About me

  • I'm L.I.D
  • From
My profile
Varb For Me

Personal Blog Top Sites Blog Soldiers - Advertise Your Blog to Bloggers Blog Review More blogs about Jane Lake Makes a Mistake.

Add to Google

Listed on BlogShares