Comments on: Scalia: Abortion Rights Not Constitutional

Supreme Court Justice Defends Positions In TV Debate With ACLU

[garyws1]

i,of course, don't always agree with the opinions that get posted here but i love the fact that we discuss them with as much intelligence and passion as we do...

[smasterb]

cathaleen

I agree 100%. Women have the right to choose. you can choose to have *** OR choose not too. However, when we make any choice there are always consequences and we are responsible for those consequences. Any time we try to avoid our responsibility for our choices we are not free, we are irresponsible.
The most important concept of freedom is responsibility NOT Selfishness. Those who believe freedom is about individuals miss the whole point of freedom. Freedom is about doing for others, and that includes the life we create in the act of ***. You can play irresponsible games over when life starts to avoid feelings of guilt, but how life starts is obvious and that%u2019s what matters in this debate. All the rest is about self-centered emotion.

[blazercoach1]

jh6379....

Please read my scientific argument below.

Also, let's NOT agree to disagree....let's dialogue and defend our positions...and perhaps learn from each other. Please, explain to me why you think a child is NOT present. Unless you take that as "dogma"....

If you found a liver on the side of the road....would you assume that it didn't belong to anyone? Can a bone exist without belonging to someone?
How would we determine who the owner of the bone or liver is? We would run a DNA test! Why? DNA identifies not only species, but specific membership within a species.
DNA is present at the moment of conception. The DNA is unique from the mother and the father. If you can't have a liver or bone without personal ownership, whose DNA is it?
Taking something as dogma often means you haven't bothered to ask an intelligent question. It doesn't mean that there isn't an answer or explanation readily available.

[blazercoach1]

Dr. Lou,

Regarding your reference to a person's own "value system". Can a person who does not believe in personal posession (for religious reasons, perhaps.. or otherwise) simply hop into your car and drive away? If you say no...are you not, in fact, infringing on his religious freedom? Where in the Constitution is there a right to posession or ownership?

Be careful when you imply that ALL points of view are valid and deserve legal protection. Some points of view contradict that very statement! Certainly we don't allow the KKK to practice their beliefs as they see fit!

[mjv2944]

With all the available help and information on birth control, this shouldn't be an issue except in the case of rape or incest. We even have the day after pill, which is a form of abortion. Education and mandatory birth control is the answer. Start making the fathers of these kids financially responsible for them.

[blazercoach1]

Dr. Lou,

You are right on the money. Rights of the individual are guaranteed in the constitution. The discussion we are having is one regarding WHEN the individual can assume those rights.

From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Note the first of the three unalienable Rights.

[drlou1]

Constitutional Constructionists like Scalia are little more than political fundamentalists whose own political and philosophical agenda hold full sway. Supreme Court Justices are appointed based on knowledge, understanding, and judgement. Scalia could apparently be easily replaced by an algorithm and a computer.

So, no, abortion rights might not have been written directly into the Constitution. But individual rights and pursuits were in a very clear way. These are the constructs under which women and families have a 'right' to make their own decisions based on professionl medical input and their own, individual, value systems.

[drlou1]

That the Constitution may 'forbid discrimination on the basis of race' ignores the fact that it countenanced and was quiet on slavery. Would this infer that there is a basis for slavery under the Constitution?

Constitutional Constructionists like Scalia are little more than political fundamentalists whose own political and philosophical agenda hold full sway. Supreme Court Justices are appointed based on knowledge, understanding, and judgement. Scalia could apparently be easily replaced by an algorithm and a computer.

So, no, abortion rights might not have been written directly into the Constitution. But individual rights and pursuits were in a very clear way. These are the constructs under which women and families have a 'right' to make their own decisions based on professionl medical input and their own, individual, value systems.

[blazercoach1]

I like how one person says there is no scientific arguement (that it's all religious dogma) for the pro-life position...then I provide one...then getcentered begs for a philosophical argument.

Which would you folks like?

Cathleen, do you have the right to kill a 1 year old child? How about the right to have a slave?

I am CERTAIN you are not implying that these things are ok....but do you understand that the position AS YOU STATED IT could apply to those situations as well?

Please, DEFEND the position that you have the right to kill a child...your own child...(as you said) regardless of when the child is "alive".

You said that "woman have been given the right to choose". By whom? Remember that once our laws gave white folks the right to own black folks. Is that a sufficient justification for doing so? Do you believe tha ALL of our laws are morally sound...or just this one?

[spiel1958]

My wife and I have been happily married for 22 years. We have 9 beautiful children.
We don%u2019t use contraception and we%u2019ve managed to live on a single income all this time.
There is a very high probability our children will want a life like their parents. *** is a gift, to be given and hence, received within the confines of a committed and married relationship. Within such a union, children are welcomed and expected, and never seen as burdensome or unwanted. There is no need to get rid of them. Does marriage work?
Yes it does!! Through faith, hard work, patience, sacrifice, suffering, humility, responsibility, obedience, and other willing acts of love, married life and its creative effects, children, make up a truly civilized society.

[getcentered]

A philosophical question.

Humans are different in more ways than DNA.
We think, and communicate, and philosophize with language.

If we have yet to learn a language as an unborn child has yet to learn, are we human? When do we become human?

When is it truly necessary to save a life?

[cathaleen]

It's not a question of when life begins, it's a question of the right to choose. Woman have been given the right to choose - to elect to have the child or not. No one has the right to take that option away (whenever they believe life begins).

[getcentered]

Scalia is the epitome of "out of touch with society", just like most of the "conservative" movement.

Saying, life begins at conception is a philosophical conversation.
Where are our philosophers?
No where in the conservative movement, because they already know everything.

"Life begins at conception, and ends at birth%u201D Right?

[blazercoach1]

Grumpa, if you found a liver on the side of the road....would you assume that it didn't belong to anyone? Can a bone exist without belonging to someone?

How would we determine who the owner of the bone or liver is? We would run a DNA test! Why? DNA identifies not only species, but specific membership within a species.

DNA is present at the moment of conception. The DNA is unique from the mother and the father. If you can't have a liver or bone without personal ownership, whose DNA is it?

Taking something as dogma often means you haven't bothered to ask an intelligent question. It doesn't mean that there isn't an answer or explanation readily available.

[blazercoach1]

It is a tragedy that we have not done enough for women that some feel that the best option is to kill their unborn child.

More must be done to help women and children in difficult circumstances.

That said, I have never met or even heard of a woman who years after giving birth to her child...looking him or her in the eye...holding the child.... said that she wished she had killed her baby in her womb.

[grumpas]

Life begins at conception is strictly a religious point of view! It is not supported by any facts except religious dogma! If that's what they choose to believe that is fine with me! But, I really object to someone's religious belief's being rammed down my throat under the guise of laws meant to enslave and control people! If this bunch of wacko's have their way any form of birth control will be illegal! Which is irresponsible and insane! In a world that is populating itself into oblivion it's down right criminal! They should be held responsibile for the mess they are creating!

[adventurepa]

Lets hope his decisions will not take away more rights.
Let us also hope his religious views will not dictate his decision making.
Those feelings and views need to be checked at the door.
That way they are unbiased decisions..

[mkbjon]

It would almost be worth making abortion illegal to see the panic the anti abortionists and religious fanatics would experience when their mistresses and daughters get pregnant.

[cathaleen]

Mr. Scalia is entitled to his opinion.

Before abortion became legal, people like Mr. Scalia and other self-righteous hippocrits would ship their pregnant daughters or girlfriends out of the country for an abortions. Poor and middle class woman were subjugated to back rooms with poor medical care.

There's no more to say.

[oleander8]

If men were the ones to get pregnant abortions would be available at the grocery store.