|
'President Bush will nominate U.S. Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito to Supreme Court' (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Indeed. And as I said in an earlier post, children should not be conceived if this is the situation, |
should not?? f*ck yeah they should not, but what if they were? By accident? Condom broke? or whatever. There should be some legal/social cushion to protect for that.
| quote: |
but it doesn't somehow automatically override a father's rights because his wife is too much of a (pun intended) to have an open, honest discussion with him.
|
In a lot of cases these men are abusive. This is not an isolated case.
And besides: Even if she lets him know that she's having an abortion. What effect will that have? Will he be able to prevent her from having the abortion? No. At least, not legally. Her notifying her husband would actually endanger the woman's life, when in fact she has done nothing wrong. She may have just recently discovered what a psycho her husband is, she has to wait out the mandated period (because the STATE, yes, Shakka, the STATE, that evil entity that you despise, WANTS to have people married, and wants to prevent divorce, so it mandates that waiting period), and she's a few months pregnant, and is afraid her psycho husband will kill her if he finds out about the abortion.
Even if this were isolated, which it's not, there should still be loopholes or safeguards in the proposed law to protect for this kind of circumstance. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
should not?? f*ck yeah they should not, but what if they were? By accident? Condom broke? or whatever. There should be some legal/social cushion to protect for that. |
Why? You guys think more government is the solution to everyone's problems. If you want 'em in the bedroom, be prepared to sleep in the bed you're making. Condom broke? Better call Uncle Sam to fix it. We can't possibly be expected to handle things like responsible adults. Gimme a break.
Apply a little common sense here. Which scenario is better? Notifying the husband that his unborn child is about to be killed or not notifying him? Hmmmm....that's a pretty tough decision. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
We can't possibly be expected to handle things like responsible adults. Gimme a break. |
Indeed. In that case explain to me why 18-20-year-olds, who are fully adults, are not expected to be able to handle alcohol in this country. There's a specific legal cushion for alcohol which raises the age to 21.
See, it's very convenient to be a "libertarian" and offer the kind of argument you offered, except you'll be the first to forget about it and argue for restrictions and loopholes when you want some control and "civil order." Read: When it affects YOUR life. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Indeed. In that case explain to me why 18-20-year-olds, who are fully adults, are not expected to be able to handle alcohol in this country. There's a specific legal cushion for alcohol which raises the age to 21. |
I never said I supported that decision. My parents let me drink when I was 18, though I was admittedly on a tighter leash at first. I am in the camp of those that believe if you can vote for your leaders, it's reasonable to also be able to consume alcohol. In any event, comparing the drinking age to abortion legalities is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Furthermore, I wouldn't call it a "specific legal cushion" rather it is a "specific legal restriction." |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Apply a little common sense here. Which scenario is better? Notifying the husband that his unborn child is about to be killed or not notifying him? Hmmmm....that's a pretty tough decision. |
If the husband is violent or a wacko, or an insecure idiot (which MANY men in this country are -- for reasons I won't go into here, because it's a lengthy topic), then of course NOT notifying him is a hell of a lot better. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
In a question like this, the less government intervension the better, it suprises me that a conservative (who advocates less government in so many other things) can't agree with that in this case.
I agree with you that the wife should talk to her husband about having an abortion, and as most of you have pointed out, every sane woman would do so, if she doesnt she is either insane or she has a damn good reason not to. It is not the governments thing to say if she has good enough reason or not, she should have the choice. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
If the husband is violent or a wacko, or an insecure idiot (which MANY men in this country are -- for reasons I won't go into here, because it's a lengthy topic), then of course NOT notifying him is a hell of a lot better. |
Again, I think you're creating hypotheticals that are the exception--not the rule. The vast majority of husbands are probably not wackos. Laws are designed to give guidance in a broad general sense. They are not conceived to make the rest of us jump through hurdles to meet some standards that apply to only the fringe. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
In a question like this, the less government intervension the better, it suprises me that a conservative (who advocates less government in so many other things) can't agree with that in this case. |
I'll concede this premise. However, when looking at the specific case at hand, given the other requirements that the rest of the panel was unanimously in support of, I can't see why "notifying your husband that you're about to kill his unborn child" is such an "extremist" position. To me it's one more rational thing to put on the list, as long as we're creating stipulations. Simply by stipulating that the woman does not have to notify her husband is just as invasive as saying that she does. The fact that there is mention of the situation already indicates that the government has crossed over the line. And if they're going to make mention of it, then I am all for honoring the husband's rights in the situation as well.
| quote: | | I agree with you that the wife should talk to her husband about having an abortion, and as most of you have pointed out, every sane woman would do so, if she doesnt she is either insane or she has a damn good reason not to. It is not the governments thing to say if she has good enough reason or not, she should have the choice. |
I want to agree with you, but since when does the government override the sanctity of marriage. Again, I recognize that I am one of few married folks on this forum, so I'm probably arguing from a slightly different point of view, but the point is still valid, and in my humble opinion doesn't put this Alito guy in some right-wing extremist camp (at least not based on this decision alone)--which was the original point of my post. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Again, I think you're creating hypotheticals that are the exception--not the rule. The vast majority of husbands are probably not wackos. Laws are designed to give guidance in a broad general sense. They are not conceived to make the rest of us jump through hurdles to meet some standards that apply to only the fringe. |
The point is, the law is creating hurdles to jump through, not vice-versa. This law was struck down, by both the appeals court that Alito sat on and in the US Supreme Court, because of the types of hypotheticals that we're talking about.
Oh, and by the way, regarding your earlier post, I'm not for big government. I'm more of a libertarian than anything. Also, I find it funny that conservatives even make this argument because the current administration has done nothing but make government bigger, clearly betraying the ideals of the Republican party |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
The point is, the law is creating hurdles to jump through, not vice-versa. This law was struck down, by both the appeals court that Alito sat on and in the US Supreme Court, because of the types of hypotheticals that we're talking about. |
Well if the law is going to allow for abortion, should that law not also provide some general guidelines so that we are being as responsible as possible when making such big decisions? Notifying your husband doesn't strike me as a hurdle to the extent that something like bringing in a fresh copy of your credit report would constitue an unecessary hurdle.
And yes, I too don't appreciate the fact that government has grown in recent years when I would prefer it to do the opposite. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Laws are designed to give guidance in a broad general sense.
|
If they were, then it wouldn't take a top intellectual to be a Justice. The whole point of a court is to examine hypotheticals and perspectives.
BTW, in this country, people are very uncomfortable when there is a "gray area" (ANY gray area) that isn't legislated or "covered." |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
BTW, in this country, people are very uncomfortable when there is a "gray area" (ANY gray area) that isn't legislated or "covered." |
This is true. Doesn't it drive you nuts? |
|
|
|
|
