Alito

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

This is making a clear judgement on Miers for her actions, her policies. To me this says: She wasn't radically conservative enough for us. Withdraw her.

Of course there are groups who say that. Ever heard of planned parenthood? They go a little bit in the other direction - as in don't bother nominating anyone who isn't fully for abortion on demand. Can you imagine if Clinton had nominated a pro-lifer?

He was with Frist (who has problems of his own) and it was clearly a photo-op. He's exploiting the body of a dead woman for positive press.

Yawn. Like I said, no matter what was done he'd be criticized for it. It has no bearing on the man himself.

And what does Alito care about civil rights anyway?

Funny. I'll again go through my favorite confirmation hearing story ever. Ginsburg being questioned by Hatch. Hatch descirbes an employer with 30 employees, all of whom were white. He asked her if that employer could be considered as racially discriminatory under the law. She said yes. He pointed out that this was the exact employment situation of her staff. Was Ginsburg a racist? I doubt it. I would suspect that Alito isn't either.

[Gemini Cricket]

But Clinton, but Ginsberg, but Clinton, but Ginsberg...

Are conservatives borrowing Dubya's echo chamber?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Well, you can complain all you want and don't get anybody pregnant you don't want to have a child with. I won't complain when the government interveins with values that are not held my everyone in the country and legislate decisions that should be made my a medical professional qualified to make these decisions.

I'm not saying a word about the pratice of abortion. For this argument, anyway. I'm just saying if it's the woman's decision, then it is the woman's decision and therefore her responsibility. I can understand why you wouldn't want the government to be involved. Fine. But if it's your choice, it's your responsibility.

What if the man wants the kid and the woman doesn't? She can still abort. Even though he was part of the process, he has no rights should she choose to abort. So, if the man doesn't want the kid and cannot force the woman to abort, why should he be finanacially responsible?

Again, my argument is completely rhetorical. I have yet to hear anyone ever give me a logical reason why the man should be financially responsible when it is only the choice of the woman to have the child or to abort the child.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, the woman is involved procreative process as well, right? If they are both responsible before the act, and they are both responsible financially after the borth, shouldn't they both have a say in whether the child comes into the world or not?

I think the biology reality gives the choice to the woman, she's carrying the child, and what she does to herself impacts the fetus as well. There are lots of things a potential mother can do that might end the pregnancy whether or not they seek a medical abortion.

Can a husband require his wife to get prenatal care? Make her not drink? Can a husband order his wife to have a pregnancy test, to determine if her behaviors are endangering a potential fetus? If a woman denied the man to be the father, could he require a fetal paternity test to establish his legal rights?

I have to doubt that you would accept the scenario where the man uses economic coercion to force a woman to abort. Of course we could write laws that allow it, I think enforcement would be an impossibility.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

But Clinton, but Ginsberg, but Clinton, but Ginsberg...

Are conservatives borrowing Dubya's echo chamber?

I don't think that the most recent nominations to the court are irrelevant to the current confirmation process at all.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I think the biology reality gives the choice to the woman, she's carrying the child, and what she does to herself impacts the fetus as well.
Can a husband require his wife to get prenatal care? Make her not drink?

Making my point for me? Since the man has no control over how the woman treats the child she's carrying, which could be abusive, why should he be expected to bear the increased financial burden of caring for an ill child because the woman was irresponsibile?

I have to doubt that you would accept the scenario where the man uses economic coercion to force a woman to abort. Of course we could write laws that allow it, I think enforcement would be an impossibility.

Of course not. This is why I'm saying my argument is completely rhetorical. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a situation where the man has no control over what the woman chooses to do, yet he is held financially responsible for her decision. Yes, I realize he participated in getting her pregnant, but so did she (of course, so no one jumps on me, this excludes rape).

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I believe that might be considered an extreme example. I don't know the complete statistics regarding abortions performed in the country, but I don't think anywhere close to a decent percentage are due to rape.

I could be mistaken - like I said, I don't know the numbers.

I'll make you a deal - I won't complain about abortion in the cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother if you'll agree to outlaw all others.

I didn't think so.

Fine. I'll agree with your deal if you agree to mine: no bitching about Welfare or any of the programs that will be needed to help these women take care of these babies, especially since males will be off the hook for paying child support. ( House votes to cut programs ).

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Of course not. This is why I'm saying my argument is completely rhetorical. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a situation where the man has no control over what the woman chooses to do, yet he is held financially responsible for her decision.

I can see your point, and wouldn't object if the laws changed to reflect this position, but I can also see how the economic consequences might be used as another deterent to what's generally viewed as "immoral" behavior (added to the list of accidental pregnancy, disease, or aquiring a psycho-stalker).

I'm curious if you'd make the same argument for a married couple - Should a husband be allowed to withold finacial support of a child he didn't want with his wife - what would that situation look like? Or would the presumption be, divorce would be result of this situation?

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't think that the most recent nominations to the court are irrelevant to the current confirmation process at all.

Not irrelevant but easy to dismiss when someone argues that Clinton is to blame for everything this administration does wrong.

[wendybeth]

Perhaps only rapists should be forced to pay child support?

Scaeagles, there are lots of instances where birth control is used, and it fails. Why should the woman be the only one who pays? I guess because that's how it's alway been, eh?