Which is why decisions by the Court are subject to change, not etched on stone tablets and carried down a mountain. If/when the issue is "ripe" it will end up before the Court again, and perhaps it will change or not. Until that time, we have the law to guide us.

You're right, of course. I know this because I agree with you.

Anyway, the issue is useful for exploration because I think its dumb to have courts make laws. I'd prefer for laws to come from legislation rather than interpretation--we elect the nitwits who legislate but have no control, for life, over the nitwits who interpret it. Thus, if we want the law changed then we should act to have it changed rather than wait for socity to evolve and the Supremes to follow society's lead.

To that end, abortionists and anti-abortionists push and pull at voters in many ways. Sometimes directly but lately, mostly through PAC-money to their chosen candidates. It snice to know what the argument is about, free of the polemically charged phraseology of impassioned activists.

Thus, I think its useful and reasonable to explore the icky parts of the dialogue. Like the Chris Reeves viability argument.

B

The rusty coathanger is a viable argument. Because of it, you cannot make all abortion illegal. It simply forces them back to that. At this point in our cultural evolution, thats not going to happen.

A lot of my opinions on forcing women to carry a child are based on life experince. I had a very religous friend, he and his wife were expecting a baby, and midway in the pregnency they found out the child had very little brain development. The doctor told them that even if the child was born alive, it would probably not live more than a couple of days. The husband was adamant that she carry the baby to term anyway, threatening divorce etc, when what she really wanted was to get an abortion. To keep him happy, she had the baby, who passed quickly after birth. Their marriage only lasted a month or so after that. You have to stop and ask yourself, even tho he was the husband, what right did he have to force a choice like that on another person? Why does the women in a situation like that need somebody coercing her on top of whatever else she is dealing with? Its just not my place to make a decision, any decision when it comes to an abortion, 8 days or 8 months, its up to her, her doctor and her God.

I give up on this one, too.

Its actually a deadhorse argument. I, myself have no plans to have an abortion anytime soon, so I really am not affected by it.

Simple answers? No. Simple question- Who do you want deciding what you can and can't do with your body? You, your family and your chosen medical professional OR the Government?
We know the religious right's answer.

Bot,
I take issue with your terminology. I am pro-choice not an abortionist. I don't personally support abortion but I don't think it's my right to force that view on anyone else. GET THE DIFFERENCE?
Anti-abortionist is accurate.

I'm just pro women's rights.

I am also anti-kook

[b]
Ten Commandments Monument Begins Tour
Saturday, July 31, 2004

FOX NEWS


Commandments Monument to Tour U.S.•Ten Commandments an Issue in Ala. GOP Primary

DAYTON, Tenn. — The Ten Commandments monument (search) banished from Alabama's state judicial building began a national tour on the back of a flatbed truck on Saturday — starting outside the courthouse where the teaching of evolution was put on trial almost 80 years ago.

"The ACLU (search) is still the enemy," said June Griffin of Dayton, an outspoken advocate for displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings.

About 75 people gathered to see the 5,280-pound granite monument outside the site of the Scopes Monkey Trial (search) — where high school teacher John Scopes was convicted in 1925 of giving lessons on evolution. Many stepped up a ladder to take photos and pose beside the marker.

Ousted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who lost his job for defying a federal court order to remove his display from the lobby of the judicial building, approved the national tour but is not participating.

A spokeswoman for Moore said he plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. A federal judge agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that the display was an unconstitutional government promotion of religion.

Jewell Sneed, 70, snapped photos of her 7-year-old great grandson, Jacob, standing beside the monument.

I think it was awful for them to make them move it from he courthouse," Sneed said. "That is what our country is based on, is God and the Bible. Why we want to take God out I don't know. I think we are headed for big trouble when we take God out of schools and everything."

The stop at the courthouse and at Rhea County High School — where Bible classes were taught until a federal lawsuit ended them in 2002 — were the first in a tour that could crisscross the nation for up to a year.

The tour was arranged by Americans Standing for God and Country, a Texas-based veterans' group looking for congressional support to permanently display the marker at the U.S. Capitol. The group intends to take the monument to Washington on Oct. 22 for an "America For Jesus" rally.

Larry Darby, president of the Mongomery-based Atheist Law Center, Inc., was heckled by some in the crowd Saturday and loudly told, "You're not welcome here."

At one point, John Rocco, 73, of Dayton, bumped his knee into Darby's leg as they passed on the ramp steps to the display.

"That's typical Christianity," Darby shouted. "These people are the lunatic fringe."

Rocco said the knee bump was an accident.

"I'm glad I didn't carry my gun. I'd probably be in jail right now." Rocco said. "I believe in the Ten Commandments and I don't appreciate what people like him are doing to my country."

The courthouse in Dayton became a flashpoint for creationism vs. evolution in 1925, when orator and presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan and lawyer Clarence Darrow squared off during the prosecution of Scopes for teaching evolution instead of the biblical story of creation.

Moore's monument was placed in a judicial building closet for almost a year until he accepted the offer by the veterans' group to take it on the road. The group promotes itself as veterans dedicated to battling domestic enemies and protecting "Christian heritage."

"One of our domestic enemies is our failing judicial system," said Jim Cabaniss, president of the veterans' group, a division of American Veterans in Domestic Defense. "Our position is we have removed the monument from a dark room in the Alabama Supreme Court Building and exposed it to the world."

Cabaniss said the tour is not political and is not raising money for the group or Moore.

Although no speaker asked for money, pamphlets handed out at the stadium rally included an application for active membership in the veteran's group, at a cost of $120 a year or $1,000 for lifetime. A representatives of the Foundation for Moral Law, Inc., of Montgomery sold Ten Commandments pins for $5.

Cabaniss said the tour would probably go to Mississippi from Tennessee.

This is from the web site of these guys Fox calls a "veterans group" They look like a bunch of wackos. The last sentence is chilling. I wonder who "the enemy" is?


American Veterans in Domestic Defense
Mission Statement

http://www.avidd.org/

The Mission of AVIDD is a simple one. We want to once again serve our country and help return the United States to the vision of our forefathers, under the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

As concerned veterans, AVIDD will search out and identify specifically who or what is causing the problems for America and neutralize the negative impact on our society. We will study the methods of these "domestic enemies," of the United States and plan a strategy to neutralize their destructiveness. Our plan is to be as diplomatic as possible, but as assertive as the law permits.

AVIDD will encourage and support those individuals, organizations, and corporations who are upholding our laws under The Constitution, freedom, morality, Christian principles, etc.

AVIDD will run interference for the good guys.

Since "money talks", we can make it financially unprofitable for the enemy to disagree with AVIDD

So many nutcases, so little time.

OR, with "patriots" like these who needs enemies.

Why is Fox giving these nuts positive press? This statement drips with menance and paranoia:

"As concerned veterans, AVIDD will search out and identify specifically who or what is causing the problems for America and neutralize the negative impact on our society. We will study the methods of these "domestic enemies," of the United States and plan a strategy to neutralize their destructiveness. Our plan is to be as diplomatic as possible, but as assertive as the law permits."

These are the people currently running this country. No wonder we are in such a divisive mess.

That's a reasonable set of questions.

Recall the German cannibal thing? Why should one adult not be allowed to consume another adult if both are willing? The government has no "steak" in it, who is the gov to say what one may or may not do with one's body? Or how about decorative amputation? You know, lop some parts to make you more attractive to,..I don't know, somebody?

I'm sure we know the religious right's answer to that, too.

The abortion issue has already been decided in America and most of the civilized world.

__________________
George Stephenson
1991 350 SDL (200K and she ain't bent, yet)
former 2002 E320 4Matic Wagon - good car
former 1985 300 CD - great car
former 1981 300 TD - good car
former 1972 280 SEL - not so good car
a couple of those diesel Rabbits ...40-45 mpg