Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal bmetzler's Journal: Getting our Babies Back 54

Journal by bmetzler

Norma McCorvey has filed a motion to overturn Roe V. Wade. This is really a historic moment, and as the article states, the first landmark case where the plaintiff has asked for the ruling to be overturned.

It would be wonderful to see the day again when it is illegal to murder human beings. Although that day is most likely years, if not decades, in the future, we have seen huge strides this year. The partial birth abortion ban was also a huge success, as well as the 24 hour waiting period in MN.

"I feel like the weight of the world has just been lifted off my shoulders," said McCorvey, 55.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Getting our Babies Back More

Getting our Babies Back

Comments Filter:
  • Many folks that embrace the baby death penalty also despise the adult death penalty by government, unless it is that Oregon euthenasia law and embrace big government and call themselves Liberals (or some disguise name).

    Then there are some that despise the baby death penalty, embrace the adult death penalty by government and the Oregon euthenasia law, say they hate big government and call themselves Conservatives (while asking for more laws).

    I am just lost on the attitudes on some of these issues.

    For the
    • I assume that by pro-freedom, you are talking about not using the death penalty against those who have committed violent crime such as murder.

      I think I might be misunderstanding you, but that is what most people with that position seem to believe. "Horrors!! You won't let me kill my baby because it is going to cost me a lot of money in formula and diapers, but you'll kill someone who has killed sometimes several people because it costs too much to incarcerate them for 40 years! You are EVIL!!!!"

      Needles
      • I assume that by pro-freedom, you are talking about not using the death penalty against those who have committed violent crime such as murder.

        The long answer: I think it's fine to kill someone that is endangering others while they are a threat, i.e., assaulting someone is good enough to get one's brains splattered on the street.

        Once the cuffs are on then the state should not have the power to take that person's life. The state should be heald accountable for keeping that person in jail and it should be
        • The state should be heald accountable for keeping that person in jail and it should be EXPENSIVE, partly as a deterrant from promiscuous apprehension, prosecution and incarceration.

          Doesn't work. It isn't the state's money in the first place - you should have spotted by now that they like spending other people's money...

          As an added bonus, a victim is still around for all of those slicky prosecutors that fabricate evidence (procecutors should NOT have immunity from any charges). Sofar, the state has a pret

          • If the unjustly convicted person is dead he can never be released.
            • If the unjustly convicted person is dead he can never be released.

              If the unjustly convicted person has spent 20 years in prison, he can never get the 20 years back. Also, death row cases receive much more effort to prove innocence than life sentences do: an unjust non-capital conviction is much less likely to be found and corrected. What about when there is no doubt of the prisoner's guilt? (Remember

              Supposing bin Laden were captured alive, and convicted. Would you really want to wait for him to die of nat

              • Supposing bin Laden were captured alive, and convicted. Would you really want to wait for him to die of natural causes in prison - fighting off the inevitable terrorist attempts to free him - rather than expedite it?

                Yes.
        • Two questions:

          Do you consider a death sentence imposed by a jury as having been imposed by the state?

          In the case where a murder is nearly certain to re-offend, and would pose a threat to the lives of other inmates and prison staff (if imprisoned), or to the public at large (if released or escaped), is the death penalty appropriate?
          • Do you consider a death sentence imposed by a jury as having been imposed by the state?

            Yes.

            In the case where a murder is nearly certain to re-offend, and would pose a threat to the lives of other inmates and prison staff (if imprisoned), or to the public at large (if released or escaped), is the death penalty appropriate?

            No.

            BTW, if he is properly confined how can he be a threat to anybody? We can keep POWs for ages with little problem and they try to escape like ants and jack russell terriers.
            • I see the jury system as a specific limit on state power (though its effectiveness may be less than one would hope), so I'm not sure that I would agree with the "state power" argument with regard to a death sentence imposed by a jury. I'm not sure that a jury is generally wise enough, though, to impose a death sentence (I'm not sure that anyone is, in fact) - or any sentence that is irrevocable.

              When you talk about killing someone who poses a danger, how imminent does the danger have to be before the kill
              • I see the jury system as a specific limit on state power (though its effectiveness may be less than one would hope), so I'm not sure that I would agree with the "state power" argument with regard to a death sentence imposed by a jury. I'm not sure that a jury is generally wise enough, though, to impose a death sentence (I'm not sure that anyone is, in fact) - or any sentence that is irrevocable.

                As I said many posts ago, I do not believe that the state should have the power to impose this sentance. Furthe
                • Wow, we are very much in agreement on these two points.

                  In general the State should not be in the business of depriving people of life after they are in custody, even with due process.

                  Also people should have the right to defend themselves against threats to their life, well beeing, or property.

                  On abortion and euthenasia I do disagree somewhat. In general I think it is best if the government stays out of this as much as possible, especially the Federal government.

                  As far as euthenasia goes I think you shou
    • Rather than a new thread, I'll jump in here.

      I've always been amused that those in favor of 'killing babies' are against killing violent criminals. But, I'm in favor of both. Also got no qualms with suicide. 'Assisted' suicide, however, is a tricky business.

      To bmetzler: I'm generally against abortion as a form of birth control. And late term. But I find myself asking 'how do you know when life begins'? (If it's a theistic thing, that's fine, and one metric for you to use, but I would argue with that premis
      • although not as black and white as it seems you've decided for yourself

        That JE is over here [slashdot.org] ;-)
      • I guess I agree with you quite a bit.

        I'm beginning to have 2nd thoughts about suicide. After all, we aren't supposed to go & watch everybody's moves to make sure that nobody is going to kill themselves. I am of the view that larger scale organizations like governments should not interfere with such things. After all, what will you do to someone who wants to kill himself? Punish him? Give him capital punishment for killing himself? I believe that killing 1's self is sinful, & that there may be mild
      • I would place part of the blame on the difficulty of adoption in the US. As evidenced by many cases in the popular media in the past 15 years, it seems adoption is never 'a done deal'. The birth parents can always return and fuck things up. We worry too much about the parents' rights, and not enough about what's in the best interests of the child. (People on tv pay lip service to this, but it is a fiction. In the courts, children rarely have rights, only adults)

        The laws in the US are similar to the laws
    • Personally, I find 'pro-life' to be a rather interesting term. I certainly hope that even the 'pro-choice' bastards out there are also 'pro-life'. I don't think they are advocating abortion, I might be wrong. Err, baby death penalty. Whatever.

      I think, and hope, that if faced with helping a mate make the decision(I'm a dude, so it isn't really my choice), that I would be adamantly against an abortion. I don't like the idea of it. It is ugly. But I don't think that my opinion about the distastefulness of abor

  • I love abortions myself, I guess if it was up to people with your opinions condoms would be illegal too and gays would be shot on site. I have no interest in getting in to this argument. Its just another example religion contaminating the judicial and political processes of this country.
    • and gays would be shot on site.

      Woah!! I'm advocating that babies shouldn't be shot on sight, and your logic demands that I also believe that gays *should* be shot on sight? That's a major logical stretch, isn't it?

      Its just another example religion contaminating the judicial and political processes of this country.

      If by contaminating, you mean preventing courts from saying it's legal to kill healthy, vibrant, human beings like you and me, then I say I'm glad I'm contaminating this country.

      -Brent

      • If by contaminating, you mean preventing courts from saying it's legal to kill healthy, vibrant, human beings like you and me, then I say I'm glad I'm contaminating this country.

        In order for a human being to be killed it is required to be born first. As I said before I have no interest in getting in this argument that has been completely exhausted over the years. It is amazing the obsession it has on both sides of the argument. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of lives that could be saved if pro

        • I can't even begin to imagine the amount of lives that could be saved if pro-life advocates spent that same amount on hunger, disease, and poverty in third world nations, but I doubt you will see any journal entries talking about pediatric AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.

          Maybe you missed it. I didn't post a JE about it because I was not around when it happened, but the Republicans in Congress passed an aids bill to help certain African countries. Of course, the Democrats were hopping mad that the Republicans

          • This is not a Republican vs. Democrat thing and in case your wondering, I am a registered Republican. In my previous post I was talking about pro-life lobbying, monetary, and community efforts would be better spent on other causes that kill far more living children, ie out of the womb.

            I think your looking at things way too black and white as far as the party landscape is concerned, which is common of younger politically conscious people these days. People need to learn to think independently instead of su

    • I have no interest in getting in to this argument.
      I guess it all depends on how you define "getting into this argument". After all, you are posting here & you are bringing up some points.
  • It has always been around.
    It will never go away.
    Cast laws in the way, and then make it only accessible to the powerfull, and the rich.
    Make doctors criminals, and the conditions of women at a greater heath risk.
    Who are we to dictate the goings of the womans Uterous?
    If the current laws are over turned, then countless children will sire children, in economic situation that are very untenable for their own future, and their spawn.
    Nobody feels comftorble terminating their baby-that-could, but certain situations
    • What he said... but in fewer words. :-)

      In Ireland it is (still) illegal to have an abortion, yet every year lots of women travel across the Irish Sea to have abortions in Britain. So just passing a law doesn't make the 'problem' magically go away.

      • So just passing a law doesn't make the 'problem' magically go away.

        Agreed. I don't think that passing a law against rape would make the problem magically disappear either. Oddly enough, racism doesn't seem to disappear, even though "minorities" keep making new laws.

        I think that more laws are a good thing. It's just a matter of precision. Just so that we are on the same wave length, I usually encourage people to make less laws, because it is so hard to be precise.

        That being said, a law against abortions wo

        • Let's save the fetus so it can grow up to be a psychopath because its mother didn't want it and won't do right by it. Good plan.

          What I like most about these discussions is how everything is black and white until the possibility that someone you actually know is in a really hard spot to make a decision. Saw that dynamic back in school; huge raging abortion debate until a woman spoke up and said she was pregnant, and didn't see how she could stay in school or have any kind of life because a condom broke. S

          • I suppose.

            If you don't want me to stand up for the rights of others, & protect them against others, then you should make that statement all across the board. As is most often mentioned, babies can be put up for adoption.

            Also calling him a potential psychopath is like calling him most likely guilty. That is so unfair, that I won't respond to that any further.
            • This is tangental to your discussion, so feel free to disregard...

              As is most often mentioned, babies can be put up for adoption.

              I am not stating a position on abortion, but the biggest problem with adoption is that there are more unwanted kids than people willing to adopt them. In my opinion, there are plenty of reasons to adopt a child besides an inability to bear children yourself. I mentioned in my journal yesterday that I plan to adopt if I decide that I wish to become a parent, and I received thi [slashdot.org]

              • there are more unwanted kids than people willing to adopt them

                Have you got any specific stats? If not, don't bother because I'll just do a Google search. I ask just out of curiosity, not to be argumentative or to get you to "prove" anything. I've never heard of statistics [real or false] to sway me either way.

                In my opinion, there are plenty of reasons to adopt a child besides an inability to bear children yourself.

                I agree.

                I mentioned in my journal yesterday that I plan to adopt if I decide that I wish to be

                • I'm not sure that I understand his reasoning or where he is going with it.

                  I think he just needed to disagree with something, and there I was.

                  In fact, I may adopt an older child...

                  That's wonderful to hear. I think the biggest reason that adoption is such a hassle isn't the paperwork or the social workers- it's that people are so intent on adopting an infant (and they place too much emphasis on race, IMO) that they have to wait for years before their name comes up on the waiting list. You don't have
  • Before I got pregnant and had a child, I was very pro-choice. Now that I've had a child, I am *very* anti-abortion... but strangely enough, still pro-choice.

    I have a hard time reconciling these two points of view, but it comes down to this: I don't think that the government should be involved at this level in a decision that is ultimately a woman's, and if she chooses to involve him, the father's.

    BUT I also believe that life, as tenuous as it is, begins at conception -- this belief began the first time
  • This is really a historic moment, and as the article states, the first landmark case where the plaintiff has asked for the ruling to be overturned.

    That's because you can't do that. If she actually does this the court may fine or disbar her lawyers for willful estoppel right after dismissing the case. They're putting their careers on the line for a foregone conclusion - they're either very brave or very stupid. The plaintiff cannot go back and ask for a different relief on the same case in our court sy
    • The plaintiff cannot go back and ask for a different relief on the same case in our court system.

      You are not a lawyer. A plaintiff can go back and ask for a ruling to be overturned if more evidence has been found proving that the original decision was wrong. Also, I don't think that there is any statute of limitations to filing a motion either. Well, except in a death penalty case when the defendant has already been executed. Then it might be too late.

      -Brent -Brent
      • That's different. The plaintiff can't change their mind about whether they want relief after they've received it. There are also several thousand other plaintiffs in Roe v. Wade who haven't asked to have it overturned. No new relevant evidence has been found because there was no evidence unique to Roe to begin with - she was representative of the class.

        Here's a comment [fark.com] from a real lawyer:

        A LAWYER SPEAKS

        Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but this legal action will die a quick death. To wit:

        Judicial es
        • Here's a comment from a real lawyer:

          I'm hardly going to count on fark for legal advice

          If an environmentalist sued to stop a certain chemical from being produced and sold because it was damaging to birds, are you saying that they can't come back 20 years leter because it had now been proven that the chemical actually is beneficial to birds?

          -Brent
          • I'm hardly going to count on fark for legal advice

            It's hardly an arcane legal doctrine. Pretty cut and dried.

            If an environmentalist sued to stop a certain chemical from being produced and sold because it was damaging to birds, are you saying that they can't come back 20 years leter because it had now been proven that the chemical actually is beneficial to birds?

            There's a factual change there that materially effects the matter. On the other hand, the environmentalists can't become anti-environmentali
            • There have been no changes in the facts that led to the Court's ruling in Roe.

              Ah, there's your problem. There has been changes in the facts that led to the original ruling. We understand a better now scientifically what is involved in fetal development.

              -Brent
              • Read the decision [tourolaw.edu] in full. None of the facts presented in this frivolous lawsuit have anything to do with the decision. All I have to say is that you're betting on a broken horse with this case.
                • None of the facts presented in this frivolous lawsuit have anything to do with the decision.

                  I barely got into the decision before I came across an area we understand more about now.

                  3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" -- the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 -- was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to

                  • I barely got into the decision before I came across an area we understand more about now.

                    You'll note that this is in the section discussing "historical perspectives", immediately preceded by this sentence:"Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws."

                    We now know that there is nothing genetically diff
                    • Abortion is almost never dangerous to the mother today.

                      You are wrong. We know now a lot more about how abortion damages women both physically and emotionally.

                      In order to hear the case over, you'd have to find new facts which do.

                      Are you saying that in the last 30 years the scientific fields in biology and genetics haven't progressed at all? That is illogical. The sciences are *all* more advanced now then they were even 10 years ago.

                      -Brent
                    • You are wrong. We know now a lot more about how abortion damages women both physically and emotionally.

                      How does this affect the topic at hand at all? So, a botched abortion could result in a perforated uterus. Smoking can result in cancer, jumping out windows can result in fractured vertabrae, and heart transplants can result in death. Causing harm to oneself is not sufficient cause for illegality.

                      But I don't think that your primary concern is for women's health. It is for the fetus. And we already
                    • So, a botched abortion could result in a perforated uterus. Smoking can result in cancer, jumping out windows can result in fractured vertabrae, and heart transplants can result in death.

                      Lawsuit in MN against ciggarette makers was won. You should know that. Heart transplants *can* result in death, and so can natural childbirth. But we are discussing the legality of purposely murdering someone. That would be like removing someones heart and letting them die, rather then giving them a new heart.

                      But I

                    • One more, then I've had enough.

                      You are wrong. We know now a lot more about how abortion damages women both physically and emotionally.

                      By "dangerous", we're talking about things like death or permanent disability as common complications. When abortion laws were first passed in the 1860s these were regular outcomes of abortion. The government could cite a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting abortion because of its danger to the patient in the 19th century. This is no longer the case. As t

Slashdot Top Deals

Logic is a pretty flower that smells bad.

Close