10 Responses to “Just gut ‘em to death, so they’re meaningless…”

1. The Countess Writes:
   September 16th, 2005 at 6:24 am

   I sat in on hearing in Massachusetts for a “Women’s Right To Know” bill. It was later sent off to study, which means for the time being, it’s dead. The usual fundies spoke in favor of the bill. A few women who had abortions 20 or so years ago also spoke about how they think the abortion ruined their lives. One woman blamed the downfall of her marriage on her abortion. These women were already in troubled marriages and relationships, and they couldn’t see that it was their partner’s alcoholism and other problems that lead to the relationships breaking up. If those women would have had their babies, things probably would have just been worse for them. The anti-choice crowd fed their shame and convinced them to speak out in support of the bill. I don’t know what’s worse - attempting to pass bills like these that harm women, or using women for political means.

   This comment was written by The Countess.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
2. RonF Writes:
   September 16th, 2005 at 7:35 am

   NARAL makes much of Roberts’ refusal to directly answer whether or not he’d vote to uphold or strike down Roe vs. Wade. Have any nominees directly answered that question since the Supremes made that decision?

   This comment was written by RonF.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
3. RonF Writes:
   September 16th, 2005 at 7:41 am

   When you get right down to it, Roe vs. Wade was based on a pretty sketchy interpretation of the Constitution. What the Supremes do, they can undo. If abortion-rights supporters want a guarantee of continued access to abortion, they need to get a constitutional amendment passed to that effect.

   I have to laugh at the whole concept of a “right to privacy”, anyway. Think about what happens to your personal information that you’ve given to Company A so they can serve you that they turn right around and sell to Company B. Consider that if you use a wireless phone at home, anyone can sit outside your house, find your channel and listen to your conversation quite legally, because you have no presumption of privacy in such a case? Nowhere else that I know of is a right to privacy assumed absent a specific law granting it in a certain circumstance.

   This comment was written by RonF.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
4. Ampersand Writes:
   September 16th, 2005 at 9:45 am

   Nowhere else that I know of is a right to privacy assumed absent a specific law granting it in a certain circumstance.

   The right to buy, possess and use birth control comes immediately to mind.

   This comment was written by Ampersand.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
5. Sheelzebub Writes:
   September 16th, 2005 at 11:11 am

   The right to make medical decisions as well.

   But hey, we’re just things that hold wombs and don’t count.

   This comment was written by Sheelzebub.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
6. RonF Writes:
   September 16th, 2005 at 12:20 pm

   Amp and Sheelzebub, I don’t understand your responses. There are specific laws granting privacy in medical matters. For which I thank God, but wait until DNA testing can start to reveal conditions you are predisposed to and the insurance companies want to see them. Ah, but I digress. What I’m talking about here is situations where there is no right to privacy explicitly granted by law, such as was the case prior to Roe vs. Wade in the various states that forbade abortion or restricted it. In those cases, neither those states nor Federal law recognized any right to privacy that included the decision and action of having an abortion until the Supremes said it did.

   What I’m talking about is that given a situation where there is no such law explicitly granting a right to privacy (such as the two I pointed out in my previous post), the courts tend to decide that you have NO right to privacy, even though the Supremes seem to think that there is such a right enshrined in the Constitution. If the Constitution truly has the right to privacy written in it, why isn’t it generally applicable?

   This comment was written by RonF.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
7. Ampersand Writes:
   September 16th, 2005 at 12:41 pm

   I’ll let Sheelzebub defend her point. My point was that the right to use birth control is a right of privacy that the Supreme Court has found exists, even lacking specific laws saying so. What don’t you understand about that?

   This comment was written by Ampersand.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
8. RonF Writes:
   September 16th, 2005 at 2:56 pm

   Amp, I was unaware that the Supreme Court had so held. Was this in the absence of affirmative law (or in the presence of law that denied such a right)?

   I certainly believe that there should be a right to privacy. What I question (and I have not read Roe vs. Wade, I have only seen analyses of it from the usual advocacy groups on both sides) is whether or not that’s explictly in the Constitution, and if not whether the Supremes exceeded their authority in saying it does. And I see that there are various instances where I would presume that I have a right to privacy, but that I don’t according to how the law is currently being interpreted. I’m wondering why the right exists in some instances and not in others. I’m wondering why, if this is a civil right, the right to privacy hasn’t been extended to all such cases by the Supremes.

   And finally, I wonder whether the right for one or two people to privacy gives them control when there is a potentially 3rd person involved. I realize that opens up the entire topic of abortion rights, and I don’t want to get into that here. My point is that the concept of a “right to privacy” seems to be quite shaky from the viewpoint of how unevenly I observe it to be applied, and that shakiness seems to be a point from which abortion rights opponents might successfully lead an attack on it at the level of the SCOTUS.

   This comment was written by RonF.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
9. Fielder's Choice Writes:
   September 17th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

   The right to privacy exists. It does not mean what the S.C. believes it to.

   Fetuses have a right to privacy. To violate this right is a fatal assault.

   As for Griswold, listen: People who want to avoid unintended pregnancies are as likely to be male as female. People who want a pregnancy not wished by their partner are as likely to be female as male. People who believe that they were put on this earth to pop out infants are as likely to be very poor as very wealthy. People who believe that the rights of women depend on the jurisprudence of private plastic instruments may find the point much more difficult to defend than in 1964, when the equality of women was more in question generally.

   Imagine a society where men and women have equal rights and fifteen kids. Which is more important? Go ask your mom and dad.

   Privacy is.

   This comment was written by Fielder's Choice.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
10. alsis39 Writes:
    September 18th, 2005 at 6:53 am

    Fetuses have a right to privacy.

    Don’t be an ass. To the degree that it lives, it lives inside a woman. It cannot live without a living woman. Are you arguing that fetuses appear to spontaneously generate along the roadside in random clusters, like weeds ? Or do you propose teleporting them out of unwilling women and into jars ? I’m sure you could arrange for them to have much more in the way of “privacy” at that point.

    People who want to avoid unintended pregnancies are as likely to be male as female. People who want a pregnancy not wished by their partner are as likely to be female as male. People who believe that they were put on this earth to pop out infants are as likely to be very poor as very wealthy.

    Which is all apropos of– what, exactly ? At the end of the day, women are the ones who must carry and birth babies. Are you about to burst into song ? Please warn me so I can bolt. Your writing skills here don’t bode well for any lyrical tendencies you might possess.

    [Barbara Streisand:]

    People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.

    [/Barbara Streisand]

    People who believe that the rights of women depend on the jurisprudence of private plastic instruments

    What would those be ? Speculums ? Vibrators ? Recorders ? For the love of NOTA, could you please locate a point and get to it ? I have absolutely no clue what you’re going on about, and I’ll wager that I’m not the only one whose confused.

    may find the point much more difficult to defend than in 1964, when the equality of women was more in question generally.

    [snicker] Sure. When did that magical transformation happen ? Before or after we cured world hunger and put solar panels on everybody’s house for free ?

    Imagine a society where men and women have equal rights and fifteen kids. Which is more important? Go ask your mom and dad.

    My mother is probably still asleep at this hour, and I’m afraid my Dad can’t be reached at this point without the assistance of a spirit medium. At any rate, I’m pretty sure they’d find your question as bewildering and nonsensical as I do.

    FC, your posts should come with subtitles.

    This comment was written by alsis39.
    Report this comment to the moderators
    

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

(Need to know how to create blockquotes and links, i.e., linked text?)

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking program may have blocked your comment by mistake. When this happens, please contact the moderators right away so we can rescue your comment!