PDA

View Full Version : Why Do People Say "The Supreme Court Is Wrong?" when it doesn't rule their way?


SilentScope001
04-26-2007, 04:39 PM
This is a simple question.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-04-26-voa55.cfm

I don't care about the abortion debate. I really don't. But, what I do care about is how hypocritical everyone is in this debate about the only thing that gets to decide if Abortion is legal or not: The US Consitution and the Supreme Court.

This Court is supposed to the final court, where questions of huge consitutional importance are appealed to, and its desicion is final. You cannot question it or claim they are evil or wrong or murderers, etc.

Just think. Pro-Lifers state that the Supreme Court made a mistake in 1973 with Roe v. Wade, and Pro-Choicers state the Supreme Court has done a heroic deed with Rove v. Wade.

Now, it's different. Partial-birth abortion is finally banned thanks to the Supreme Court. Pro-Lifers thank the Supreme Court for doing a heroic deed. Pro-Choicers scream at the Supreme Court for being evil.

So the Supreme Court is good only if they support your side, but once they have a change of heart (thanks to new members), they suddenly turn "evil"? Or vice versa, for pro-lifers? This is absurd. The Founders wanted people to obey the laws, not question them endlessly and not question the Supreme Court and calling them biased or stupid or evil or whatever.

The US Consitution placed the Supreme Court as the final body BECAUSE if its desicion can be questioned, and if it can be contiunally questioned, all law breaks down. Guess what? We're questioning the Supreme Court all this time, and we're letting the US's Court lose meaning and revelance becasue we hate it for not choosing what we choose.

Yes, judges are in fact, biased. I realize that. I know that. I know they all have personal views. But, for crying out loud, why should we state that because they have personal views different from ours, we should start replacing them with judges that support our personal views, instead of just stating, "Fine. I hate you, but you are the Judge, and you determine what is right and wrong, and that you are right. The Law does agree with you. I'll obey, but just you watch."

Nope. Instead, people just scream for change. Sheesh. The Founders would be rolling in their graves, that is for sure.

ET Warrior
04-26-2007, 04:51 PM
The Founders would be rolling in their graves, that is for sure.Not really. The entire POINT of our system of government is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to voice their dissatisfaction with the choices that are made by the government and attempt to enact change. If we were to just sit by and accept the decisions made by the supreme court, never question them, and never get upset by them, then we never would have made progress as a society.

EnIgmA_XX
04-26-2007, 04:52 PM
well, all people in the world have a view of what a perfect world would be. to me, it's good to know that people are striving to make the world a better place, at least to them. i also agree that people are wrong to be hypocrites, though. i guess it's just human nature. everyone has done it at least once, and it's just how we are.

SilentScope001
04-26-2007, 04:58 PM
Not really. The entire POINT of our system of government is that anyone and everyone should be allowed to voice their dissatisfaction with the choices that are made by the government and attempt to enact change. If we were to just sit by and accept the decisions made by the supreme court, never question them, and never get upset by them, then we never would have made progress as a society.

The District Court declare Bobby to be a criminal, for killing someone.

"But wait! I question the District Court. The District Court is filled with Anti-Bobby people! I call for an appeal, boycott, and a release of Bobby!"

The District Court: But Bobby killed someone at the Grocery Store.

"No he did not! Bobby says he killed no one, therefore, he killed no one! The District Court is evil! Release Bobby now!"

*appeals later proved that Bobby indeed is a killer*

"The appealate courts are all fileld with anti-Bobby sentiment! I call for a replacement of all Judges who hate Bobby with judges who are Pro-Bobby. These judges would hereby aquit Bobby and end this terrible tragery and miscarriage of justice!"

...Er...No. You can question the Legalstive Branch's desicion for making the laws in the first place, of course. But, can you question the Judicial Branch for trying to figure out what the law means? I say no. Because the Judicial Branch is the only branch that is authorized to figure out what the Consitution actually says, due to the powers of the Consitutions, and if we are allowed to go and question what the Judicial Branch (and, indirectly, the Consitution itself)...because we hate their desicion...you might as well kiss the judicial system goodbye.

We have to stop questioning and start accepting a final desicion-making body.

ET Warrior
04-26-2007, 05:12 PM
And what happens when that same court decides that something like the Patriot Act is ok? Are to just to sit by and allow the kinds of decisions that are impugning on our freedoms to occur? Or should we speak up and make our voices heard?

I prefer the latter.

Nancy Allen``
04-26-2007, 06:20 PM
So the Supreme Court is good only if they support your side, but once they have a change of heart (thanks to new members), they suddenly turn "evil"?

Yes, and that's all the answer you need. People really are Sith like (if you are not with me then you are an enemy) not just with the Supreme Courts and the issue of abortion, but everything you can think of. Politics, religion, the enviroment, war, anything, you pick it, and people will take a hard line and, given that the Supreme Court is the main focus here, undemocratic viewpoint that things go their way, or things go there way. If things arn't settled the way they are meant to be (such as the Supreme Court) then they will say things like the Supreme Court are evil and seek to force the decision in their favor in other ways.

ET Warrior
04-26-2007, 09:09 PM
(if you are not with me then you are an enemy)That's not really the issue here though. The issue is that people do not, and SHOULD not be allowing someone else to dictate their morals for them. Just because the Supreme Court says something is morally acceptable does not mean you should agree with them just because they are the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is headed by people that are every bit as fallible as anyone else.

GarfieldJL
04-26-2007, 09:30 PM
The Patriot Act is legal due to the fact we're at war and it has to keep being renewed. The Constitution does allow for things like the Patriot Act when we're at a state of war.

This is why Supreme Court Justices are in for Life, so their jobs aren't threatened when they have to make an unpopular ruling.

SilentScope001
04-26-2007, 09:32 PM
And what happens when that same court decides that something like the Patriot Act is ok? Are to just to sit by and allow the kinds of decisions that are impugning on our freedoms to occur? Or should we speak up and make our voices heard?

Or...you know, get the legastive and executive branch to REVOKE the law you hate.

They were the ones that made it. The Supreme Court just ruled it legal. The majority of the USA did vote in the Executive Branch and did vote for the Senators and Representives in the Legalstive Branch. All the Court did was checked to see if it was legal according to the Consitution, and then authorized it.

You have the right to change the Legastive and Executive branches if you feel that they are not representing your view correctly. You have no right to change the Judicial Branch however because you hate what they have done. Have you heard of the concept of "judical indepedence", let the judges decide and have nobody pressure them?

That's not really the issue here though. The issue is that people do not, and SHOULD not be allowing someone else to dictate their morals for them. Just because the Supreme Court says something is morally acceptable does not mean you should agree with them just because they are the Supreme Court.

Neither was Roe v. Wade. A Pro-Lifer actually told me that he was angry at it because it infringed on the state's right to choose. He was okay with states legalizing abortion in liberal states, but he desired for the right of states that want to ban abortion to ban aboriton. Agree with it or disagree, but the ability of freedom can go both ways.

The Supreme Court is headed by people that are every bit as fallible as anyone else.

...until they realize that they shouldn't be allowed to dictate morals to other people. Then they suddenly become correct.

The Supreme Court has to be unfallible. It has to be the final court. It has to, by law, determine what the solution to pressing questions is, and then end it at that. Otherwise, these issues and debates will continue forever. See the Abortion debate for instance. It should have ended at Roe v. Wade, but it didn't. Not at all, thanks to both Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers.

In fact, see any argument where there is no judge to evaluate the arguments and make a desicion. You'll find that the arguments will last forever...and if the people who are arguing decides not to listen to a judge if the judge rules against his position, then it is as if there was no judge to begin with.

Thanks to both of you people, society may very well collaspe into hundreds of cultural wars, with the Court just being a pawn, to be used as a great ally to be praised or as an evil foe who should be villifed. As I said, the Founders are rolling in their graves.

This is why Supreme Court Justices are in for Life, so their jobs aren't threatened when they have to make an unpopular ruling.

Well...actually...

As federal judges, the Justices serve during "good behavior", meaning they essentially serve for life and can be removed only by resignation, or by impeachment and subsequent conviction.

Congress do have the right, actually, of impeaching judges, kicking them out of the Supreme Court. (By impeach, I mean, putting them on trial like the Bill Clinton impeachment trial, to actually convict and get them out requires a vote) Only one time was this done...in the early years of the Republic against a Federalist judge who happens to also be a drunkard. That failed miserably, as it was seen to be politcally motivated.

I doubt Congress would ever do that again. If they did though, I would object heavily.

Nancy Allen``
04-26-2007, 10:14 PM
I'll put down a quote from the film Magnum Force. I think that'll go a long way to explaining how I think we should look at the issue.

Harry: How do you figure on pulling this off, Briggs?

Briggs: l run the investigation, with your record, l can make anything stick.

Harry: What l can't understand is, why you of all people?

Briggs: A hundred years ago in this city, people did the same thing. History justified the vigilantes, we're no different. Anyone who threatens the security
of the people will be executed. Evil for evil, Harry. Retribution.

Harry: That's just fine. But how does murder fit in? When police start becoming
their own executioners...where's it gonna end, Briggs? Pretty soon, you'll start executing people for jaywalking. And executing people for traffic violations. Then you end up executing your neighbor 'cause his dog pisses on your lawn.

Briggs: There isn't one man we've killed that didn't deserve what was coming to him.

Harry: Yes, there is. Charlie McCoy.

Briggs: What would you have done?

Harry: l'd have upheld the law.

Briggs: What the hell do you know about the law? You're a great cop, Harry. You had a chance to join the team, but you'd rather stick to the system.

Harry: Briggs, l hate the goddamn system. But until someone comes along with some changes that make sense, l'll stick with it.

Now I think these guys had the right idea, that killers shouldn't be allowed to get off in the courts, but that's the way the system works and rather than go after the killers, or in the case of the Supreme Court cry that they're evil and biased work to make the system better, and no making the Supreme court all people who are pro life or something isn't going to make things better. That's one of the things wrong with the Rodney King trial, the jury wasn't a diverse range of the community. I think all but one of them were white and while that might not have affected the outcome it was probably seen by many of the rioters to have.

SilentScope001
04-26-2007, 10:57 PM
Now I think these guys had the right idea, that killers shouldn't be allowed to get off in the courts, but that's the way the system works and rather than go after the killers, or in the case of the Supreme Court cry that they're evil and biased work to make the system better, and no making the Supreme court all people who are pro life or something isn't going to make things better. That's one of the things wrong with the Rodney King trial, the jury wasn't a diverse range of the community. I think all but one of them were white and while that might not have affected the outcome it was probably seen by many of the rioters to have.

The only way I can see it being done is if people just attempt to create brand new laws, have them bring to a vote, and then have the majorty vote "Yes" for it. The USA is a republic with democratic elements, so if the majority of the population wants to something to be done...sooner or later, it will be done.

Basically, if the Supreme Court says that the Consitution prohibts the burning of flags, the Supreme Court is right. Then people who still hate the burning of flags can go and create an Amendment to actually allow for the US to prohibt the burning of flags. If the Supreme Court says abortion is legal, then get a law that bans abortion. Instead of tampering with the Supreme Court and cursing it for just doing its job, just accept the Supreme Court's judgements and set up new laws via the Legalstive and Executive branch, which are supposed to be swayed by the whims and beliefs of the population...not the Court.

ET Warrior
04-27-2007, 03:10 AM
The only way I can see it being done is if people just attempt to create brand new laws, have them bring to a vote, and then have the majorty vote "Yes" for it.And then the Supreme Court rules that the new law that has been passed is against the constitution and it simply gets struck down. Are we then to just accept that apparently our beliefs are incorrect and accede to the superior knowledge of the Judicial Branch?

And what exactly is the difference between saying "I disagree with your decision" and trying to pass laws to counter their decisions? It's a semantic difference at best.

Totenkopf
04-27-2007, 03:13 AM
Insofar as the title of your thread, I'd have to agree with the sentiment that it's not only ok to believe/think the SC is wrong when you don't like its decisions (think refs, and how often are their calls questioned), but in a way your civic obligation in a free type of society. That does not mean that you are in fact correct, just that you're free to voice your opinion (and you know the saying about opinions.....). The SC is not absolute and can in fact be overridden by the other two branches of government or by a later SC. Whether you claim that the PA is hemming in your civil rights or that the Roe V Wade decion was based on a fraudulent lawsuit, it is your right to do so. Afterall, who knows what will ultimately be the decisive element in crafting a future SC decision....

SilentScope001
04-27-2007, 12:54 PM
And then the Supreme Court rules that the new law that has been passed is against the constitution and it simply gets struck down. Are we then to just accept that apparently our beliefs are incorrect and accede to the superior knowledge of the Judicial Branch?

Well, the Judical Branch interprets the Consitution, and therefore, you just amend the Consitution then.

If say, the Judicial Branch states that slavery is legal due to property rights, then just go and amend the Consitution to say in no uncertain terms that slavery is illegal, like what happened in the 1860s. The law can change due to the will of the people.

And what exactly is the difference between saying "I disagree with your decision" and trying to pass laws to counter their decisions? It's a semantic difference at best.

The difference is that you are having it up to a vote, where the people decide with your viewpoint. Instead, what you are doing is trying to undemocratically change the accepted interpertion of the Laws already on the book by the Supreme Court, and getting rid of a system that would interpret the laws on the books so that you can replace it with a system that would interpet the laws based on how you want it to be interpeted.

Whether you claim that the PA is hemming in your civil rights or that the Roe V Wade decion was based on a fraudulent lawsuit, it is your right to do so. Afterall, who knows what will ultimately be the decisive element in crafting a future SC decision....

Maybe. But try to get some brand new information, and maybe wait at least 50 years later to try another lawsuit, when there is brand new stuff to take into consideration. Don't just go and call for impeachment of 5 judges that happen to hate your ideas. And until then, abide by the desicion by the SC.

Totenkopf
04-28-2007, 12:14 AM
SS: Don't just go and call for impeachment of 5 judges that happen to hate your ideas. And until then, abide by the desicion by the SC.

Actually, that's what ends up happening anyway. You're stuck with a decision and then you have to organize (or not) to try to reverse at some future point. It would of course be irrational to think that you'll be able to impeach 5 judges b/c you didn't like one of their decisions. But as to complaining.......eh, who really cares. Just ignore it. Most people do.

SilentScope001
04-28-2007, 11:49 AM
Actually, that's what ends up happening anyway. You're stuck with a decision and then you have to organize (or not) to try to reverse at some future point. It would of course be irrational to think that you'll be able to impeach 5 judges b/c you didn't like one of their decisions. But as to complaining.......eh, who really cares. Just ignore it. Most people do.

True, but there is still a movement to do such a thing (not impeachment of 5 judges, but waiting until 1 judge retires or dies, and then replacing him with a brand new Judge that is loyal to your ideology), and it is likely said movement will work. Complaining is fine, but when you see Judicial Activism on both the Left and the Right (why else are the Democrats fuming that the judges that Bush appointed are too "conservative"), you start to worry that the Supreme Court is losing meaning and respectability. I may just be complaining about complaining though.

Totenkopf
04-28-2007, 02:41 PM
Actually, that's a "movement" about every administration that has a shot at replacing vacancies (real/potential) on the SC. Each president that finds himself in that spot will often look for judges/candidates w/in their respective parties or sharing similiar povs. It's then up to the Senate to scrutinize the choice and say yea or nay. Sometimes a prez gets what he wants and sometimes the new appointee surprises everyone. Luck of the draw, with the process repeating itself ad nauseam over the last 2 centuries. Sort of why I say just ignore the clamoring voices. They are merely exercising their 1st Amend. rights to vocally state their stand (ie blow off steam). Part of what makes "democracy" so messy and noisy.

JediMaster12
04-30-2007, 12:21 PM
The Patriot Act is legal due to the fact we're at war and it has to keep being renewed. The Constitution does allow for things like the Patriot Act when we're at a state of war.

This is why Supreme Court Justices are in for Life, so their jobs aren't threatened when they have to make an unpopular ruling.
So it is ok to suspend the writ of habeus corpus and deny people who are citizens rights? I am sure that the old ladies who meet for Sunday coffee are really planning something. :xp:

The Patriot Act is supported by the ruling made by the Supreme Court way back when in the 40's when the Japanese were placed into internment camps. That same ruling is still used as a justification to detain our detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The ruling I thought was wrong and not even my dad who is a persistent butthead at times could convinve me otherwise. Yeah I understood the fear behind the sabotage. Pearl Harbor had just happened but this is one of those things that where you point one finger, there are usually three pointing right back at you. It's the same thing that happened September 11. There is fault on both sides. The other side may have done the act but human error, stupidity and arrogance on our side enabled the incidents to happen.

I am not saying that the guys in the black robes who sit on the bench of the highest court in the land are stupid morons but they are just like us, human. Yeah some issues may be politically motivated but like every other person, they have their own opinion. I may not agree with all of their decisions but they must be doing their job right if they can spark this much controversy.

SilentScope001
04-30-2007, 12:26 PM
So it is ok to suspend the writ of habeus corpus and deny people who are citizens rights?

It was done during the Civil War by Abe Lincoln, using the Consitution. At least then that was a bit justified, as there were indeed Southern sympathizers in the North who did say that the North should let the South seecde from the Union. The Democratic Party, or Copperheads, called for a negogiated solution with the South...which made the Republicans a bit mad. The Republican's slur for Democrats, "traitors", stuck for quite some time...

Censorship? Sure. Do I hate it? Of course! But, Lincoln did say that the Consitution states that habeus corpus can be suspened in times of national crises, and the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Lincoln, and if Lincoln did not infringe on the 1st Amendment right to protest, the Confederacy would exist today. There is little that can be done.

I'm so glad for the ACLU. And the lack of any impending Civil War.

Achilles
05-16-2007, 01:04 PM
So it is ok to suspend the writ of habeus corpus and deny people who are citizens rights? I am sure that the old ladies who meet for Sunday coffee are really planning something. :xp: Habeas corpus has been suspended in times of war before, however it was done under much different circumstances. The big problem I have with this suspension is that it's vague and the conflict is indefinite (as is what happens when you declare war on something intangible, such as "terror").

The Patriot Act is supported by the ruling made by the Supreme Court way back when in the 40's when the Japanese were placed into internment camps. That same ruling is still used as a justification to detain our detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The ruling I thought was wrong and not even my dad who is a persistent butthead at times could convinve me otherwise. Yeah I understood the fear behind the sabotage. Pearl Harbor had just happened but this is one of those things that where you point one finger, there are usually three pointing right back at you. It's the same thing that happened September 11. There is fault on both sides. The other side may have done the act but human error, stupidity and arrogance on our side enabled the incidents to happen. Unfortunately, many American's aren't even aware of the internment camps, therefore they are oblivious to the whole "history repeating" thing.

The Patriot Act is scary, but the Military Commissions Act is even scarier.

Lastly, once a gov't begins to suspend the rights of some of their citizens, I don't think it's unreasonable for everyone else to begin to worry too.

I am not saying that the guys in the black robes who sit on the bench of the highest court in the land are stupid morons but they are just like us, human. Yeah some issues may be politically motivated but like every other person, they have their own opinion. I may not agree with all of their decisions but they must be doing their job right if they can spark this much controversy. They are human, but at the end of the day their job is to serve the citizens of this country and uphold the Constitution. Any time a ruling is made for which the only clear benefactor is a political ideology, then those individuals have failed to sufficiently perform their duties.

JediMaster12
05-16-2007, 01:58 PM
Habeas corpus has been suspended in times of war before, however it was done under much different circumstances. The big problem I have with this suspension is that it's vague and the conflict is indefinite (as is what happens when you declare war on something intangible, such as "terror").
So it depends then on how far we are willing to draw the line?

Unfortunately, many American's aren't even aware of the internment camps, therefore they are oblivious to the whole "history repeating" thing.
Which is why we should educate the masses. OF course there is always the fear that nobody cares. It was part of the reason why the protests arrived late to college campuses during Vietnam.

They are human, but at the end of the day their job is to serve the citizens of this country and uphold the Constitution. Any time a ruling is made for which the only clear benefactor is a political ideology, then those individuals have failed to sufficiently perform their duties.
So would you agree upon the ruling made during WWII that is now used as justification for the detainees at Getmo?

Achilles
05-16-2007, 02:51 PM
So it depends then on how far we are willing to draw the line? Possibly. I don't know that there is a clear answer on this one. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in a specific part of the country for a specific period of time with the specific intent of taking the steam out of the rioting that was going on around the civil war. It may be that hindsight is allowing me to armchair quarterback this one inequitably, but on the surface this seems to be a very different thing than this administration's practice of going into foreign countries, performing extraordinary renditions for causes unknown, and flying them off to syria or egypt for systematic torture because "they might be terrorists". Lincoln's suspension was completely within the law, whereas I don't know that Bush's is. What is your opinion on this?

Which is why we should educate the masses. OF course there is always the fear that nobody cares. It was part of the reason why the protests arrived late to college campuses during Vietnam. Agreed. Unfortunately, I believe that you have to first care before you can be (truly) educated and I think that most people don't care.

So would you agree upon the ruling made during WWII that is now used as justification for the detainees at Getmo? Nope, not at all. I don't agree that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the general public. By the standards inacted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this decision was clearly discriminatory. Gov't practice of discrimination (by class) is not in the best interest of the citizens. My 2 cents anyway.

SilentScope001
05-21-2007, 12:27 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_o_connor

Thank you Sandra Day O' Connor. Now...why did you resign again?

shamelessposer
05-23-2007, 11:37 AM
I see that the thread has drifted away from the original ruling, but I'd like to put in my thoughts on the subject.

I am not opposed to the ruling because it goes against my beliefs. I am opposed to the ruling because it's disgustingly sloppy work on the part of the justices involved. The decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions was not made because of any medical reasons, and if I remember correctly no health professionals were even consulted. Instead, the ruling was an incredibly sexist, offensive, discriminatory attempt at protecting women from themselves.

Liberals who believe in the right of a person to have control over his or her own body and conservatives who believe in small government and prevention of a "nanny state" should be equally offended and upset over the ruling.

Jae Onasi
05-23-2007, 12:21 PM
Does everyone know what the Supreme Court said specifically about the partial-birth abortion ban? If not, I'll find it and post here and render a medical opinion along with it. The ruling was very specific and was not so much about being 'sexist' as it was about preventing infanticide.

SilentScope001
05-23-2007, 12:40 PM
But this ban allows for people to dismember the fetus. All Partial-Birth abortion does is take the fetus whole-and-soul out and let it starve to death.

So cutting off the heads and feet of the fetus and pulling it out...is okay, but just taking the child out intact is not? Somehow, if I was a fetus, I would rather not be cut up into itty bitty pieces. Law is becoming more and more arbitrary.

I wasn't really worried about the ruling more about the screaming of the "Supreme Court is Wrong!" whenever the Supreme Court actually say something.

shamelessposer
05-23-2007, 12:46 PM
Does everyone know what the Supreme Court said specifically about the partial-birth abortion ban? If not, I'll find it and post here and render a medical opinion along with it. The ruling was very specific and was not so much about being 'sexist' as it was about preventing infanticide.

Actually, you'd be wrong there. As stated above, dismembering the fetus is considered A-OK, but a standard partial birth abortion isn't allowed. There are rare circumstances (hydroencephaly, off the top of my head) where a partial birth abortion is the only method with a good chance of maintaining viability of the woman's uterus for later births. In a document written by one of the justices it's actually stated outright that partial birth abortions were banned to prevent emotional harm from coming to the woman who undergoes the procedure, hence my statement about it being sexist rather than a medical decision.

Jae Onasi
05-23-2007, 01:25 PM
There are rare circumstances (hydroencephaly, off the top of my head) where a partial birth abortion is the only method with a good chance of maintaining viability of the woman's uterus for later births.

This is not correct. PBA is never the _only_ option. It also refers to an abortion done when the baby is partly born, i.e. the head is already out. That has no effect on uterine viability, since the baby is killed after his/her head has already gone through the cervix and out of the uterus entirely, anyway.

There are quite a number of women who've given birth to hydrocephalic babies vaginally and did not have uterine damage (actually, technically it would be cervical damage). The fontanelles in the baby's skull are not closed in hydrocephalic babies any more than normocephalic babies (barring unusual exceptions), and thus their heads can also mold to fit through the cervix and birth canal just like a 'normal' baby, unless the hydrocephalus is extreme.
If there is concern about whether or not the head is too big to pass through the dilated cervix, then a c-section becomes an option. PBA is not a viable option if the head won't go through the cervix in the first place, and certainly is not an option for a mother who doesn't believe in aborting. In fact, if there is so much concern about head size that abortion is being considered as an option, then there is a significant enough potential for complications (torn and/or hemorrhaging cervix, failure to progress, to name just a couple) that may render a c-section actually safer in the long run. A controlled cesarean incision bleeds much less than a large cervical tear and thus has less risk of hemorrhage, for instance.

Web Rider
05-23-2007, 05:20 PM
Not really, they have a right to their opinion, so if they disagree with the high courts, they're welcome to appeal, or just voice their opinion in a sane, peaceful way. I mean, I don't know what else to say on the topic.

They're not being hypocritical on the subject, since they likly held that opinion before the vote was cast, and even the supreme court is basically decided by opinion.

And that IS the base idea behind a democracy, to have the country support your POV. of course your POV gets watered down quite a bit as you get more people on your side and such until you have the political power.

I don't really want to get into the PBA ban/limit/restriction. I've debated it to death already in far too many places.

Achilles
06-04-2007, 02:38 AM
C-sections would accomplish the same thing and in that case theoretically might be safer for the woman than a PBA. I don't know of any conditions that would damage a woman's uterus with a standard birth and would make a PBA safer than a c-section, but I don't have Gabbe's Obstetrics memorized, either. Huh? A minimally invasive, outpatient procedure is less safe than an operation which exposes the gut and requires at least 3 days of hospitalization afterwards? A late-trimester abortion puts the mother at risk for psychological trauma but laying in a hospital bed for three days in pain while contemplating why your stomach hurts so bad and you can't move or eat solid food is humane? Interesting.

Tell me again how this isn't about the christian agenda.