GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine General
Off Topic & Games
For when your thoughts are drifting to things not so movie, or if you're feeling trivially inclined.
591

Political Dross Repository: 2005 Edition
Topic by: Eoliano
Posted: May 31, 2005 - 4:12 PM PDT
Last Reply: December 24, 2005 - 1:29 AM PST

page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  >>      prev | next
author topic: Political Dross Repository: 2005 Edition
dpowers
post #41  on July 3, 2005 - 12:48 PM PDT  
remember that there are other arguments with which abortion can be defended. the right to privacy is the argument used in roe and is not as easy to attack as it might seem for a "conservative" court. if you believe that the constitution as written authorizes much more strictly limited government jurisdiction, then throwing out a right-to-privacy case without authorizing gross abuses of public power is tricky. the question becomes one of whether abortion is properly handled with libertarian or criminal gloves. a theological court will choose one, a "constructionist" might choose the other.

mind you i think the "constructionist" viewpoint, that the constitution doesn't authorize social programs or taxation or pretty much anything other than "common defense" is a load of manure. but whether it's called "right to privacy" or something else, roe sits on the divide between communalism and libertarianism.
Bowwow
post #42  on July 3, 2005 - 1:45 PM PDT  
> On July 2, 2005 - 7:42 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
>
> What do you think would happen immediately after concerning pro-abortion groups, womens' rights groups, etc?
> ---------------------------------

I think that pro-choice groups would find a surge in membership and funding. It is always the group that doesnt like the status quo that has more motivation for organizing. Right now, it is probably pretty easy for a lot of people to say "Why should I donate money to pro-choice groups when abortion is already legal and available, especially when I can donate money to actually change something"



woozy
post #43  on July 3, 2005 - 2:07 PM PDT  
> On July 3, 2005 - 12:48 PM PDT dpowers wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> remember that there are other arguments with which abortion can be defended. the right to privacy is the argument used in roe and is not as easy to attack as it might seem for a "conservative" court.

The argument also is that governments shouldn't dictate how parents choose to raise children which includes, having children at all. Courts have determined states rights to outlaw "sodomy" isn't a violation of privacy if the cops catch you in private via legal means.
Bowwow
post #44  on July 3, 2005 - 3:56 PM PDT  
The privacy issue is an important one. Because if Roe v Wade gets overturned, it will be meaningless unless the state can determine if a woman is pregnant and then suddently not pregnant and not pregnant because of a medically induced abortion rather than a spontanious one.
villain
post #45  on July 3, 2005 - 5:10 PM PDT  
what the hell is going on with this country? the united states now epitomizes the word regression. how sad is it that the citizens have to worry about losing their basic right to choose to NOT have a child?

you can bet bush will replace o'connor with some moronic jesus freak.

i always find it so funny that the ones who cry the most about freedom, and claim to be so patriotic, are the ones who want to remove every bit of freedom from us. visit any gun show and you'll see flags everywhere, stupid "these colors don't run" bumper stickers/shirts (although i prefer, "these colors got the runs!"), etc.
but these people are usually the most racist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant people alive.

another thing i'd like to bitch about is the eminent domain law that just passed. before, the government could take "YOUR" land throught their power of eminent domain for, let's say, expansion of highways, airports, etc.
but now, they can take "your" land for the benefit of private corporations. under the guise that building, let's say, another f#cking wal-mart would increase the local economy. bullshit!
what's to stop politicians with secret interests in companys from abusing this power?
it's very scary and sickening. and us common folk are basically powerless. we can't even count on honest elections anymore.
Bowwow
post #46  on July 3, 2005 - 6:00 PM PDT  
I am half tempted to try to get the local government around here to use eminent domain to get rid of the local Walmart. But they probably wouldnt do it.
Battie
post #47  on July 3, 2005 - 7:35 PM PDT  
> On July 3, 2005 - 5:10 PM PDT villain wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> another thing i'd like to bitch about is the eminent domain law that just passed. before, the government could take "YOUR" land throught their power of eminent domain for, let's say, expansion of highways, airports, etc.
> but now, they can take "your" land for the benefit of private corporations. under the guise that building, let's say, another f#cking wal-mart would increase the local economy. bullshit!
> what's to stop politicians with secret interests in companys from abusing this power?
> ---------------------------------

I heard about that. Kind of freaked me out. And the fact that a court didn't strike it down is even freakier!

Reminds me of my town (part of the Dallas suburban area). A Wal-Mart was built early last year. Right before, and right after, a lot of other businesses clustered around it. We've got a bunch of fast-food joints, some auto places, etc. Quite disturbing, IMO. Well, up until this year, I'd never really seen any campaign signs. But, by golly, they were out full-force last month. Everywhere! >_> Money makes politicians eager. >:|
Battie
post #48  on July 3, 2005 - 7:42 PM PDT  
> On July 3, 2005 - 3:56 PM PDT Bowwow wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> The privacy issue is an important one. Because if Roe v Wade gets overturned, it will be meaningless unless the state can determine if a woman is pregnant and then suddently not pregnant and not pregnant because of a medically induced abortion rather than a spontanious one.
> ---------------------------------

The bigger question would be, who would be legally responsible for the abortion, and what would the punishment be? How would they go about investigating the "crimes"? Is it just the woman? Her doctor? Anyone who knew and/or had involvement?

My biggest beef over the possibility of illegal abortion is how it would affect women's health care. (Not to mention the possibility that The Morning After Pill could come under attack next.) If a doctor has to worry about how his actions could be taken in a court, he/she could be more wary of claims of a miscarriage. So, whether or not a woman had induced a miscarriage or not, she could find herself in a bad situation. (And I really doubt there will be a loophole saying doctors cannot be held accountable for helping a patient that has deliberately caused herself to miscarry--it could be perceived as giving a way around the law, if a dangerous one.)
Bowwow
post #49  on July 6, 2005 - 10:42 AM PDT  
> On July 3, 2005 - 7:42 PM PDT Battie wrote:

>
> The bigger question would be, who would be legally responsible for the abortion, and what would the punishment be? How would they go about investigating the "crimes"? Is it just the woman? Her doctor? Anyone who knew and/or had involvement?
>
> My biggest beef over the possibility of illegal abortion is how it would affect women's health care. (Not to mention the possibility that The Morning After Pill could come under attack next.) If a doctor has to worry about how his actions could be taken in a court, he/she could be more wary of claims of a miscarriage. So, whether or not a woman had induced a miscarriage or not, she could find herself in a bad situation. (And I really doubt there will be a loophole saying doctors cannot be held accountable for helping a patient that has deliberately caused herself to miscarry--it could be perceived as giving a way around the law, if a dangerous one.)
> ---------------------------------

Indeed. There would be huge implications for women's health care. There already are. Look at the ban on "partial birth abortions." It happens that it is a very rare procedure used primarily to treat a condition where the baby is going to die anyways. I forget the medical name for the condition but essentially the baby's skull is filled with fluid and becomes very enlarged: too large to fit normally through the birth canal. It is a procedure that is used because it is safer and less invasive than a C-section. So the result of all those stupid laws prohibiting this procedure is that NO babies were saved and a very small number of women had c-sections they didnt need.

But, making all abortion illegal would have worse consequences. It could, for instance, make IUDs illegal. There might be issues with doctors when they encounter non-induced miscarriages although since fully 1/3 of pregnancies end by miscarriage, I think they might simply have to get over themselves. There would be issues with women who have cancer since many forms of cancer treatment are very harmful or even deadly to a fetus. Would a woman diagnosed with cancer be forced to delay treatment until she gives birth?

And of course, there is the whole enforcement issue. The truth is that very few people I have met who are pro-life have actually thought about how a ban on abortion would be enforced. I can't think of any practical way to enforce it.

Battie
post #50  on July 6, 2005 - 8:04 PM PDT  
> On July 6, 2005 - 10:42 AM PDT Bowwow wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Indeed. There would be huge implications for women's health care. There already are. Look at the ban on "partial birth abortions." It happens that it is a very rare procedure used primarily to treat a condition where the baby is going to die anyways. I forget the medical name for the condition but essentially the baby's skull is filled with fluid and becomes very enlarged: too large to fit normally through the birth canal. It is a procedure that is used because it is safer and less invasive than a C-section. So the result of all those stupid laws prohibiting this procedure is that NO babies were saved and a very small number of women had c-sections they didnt need.
>
> But, making all abortion illegal would have worse consequences. It could, for instance, make IUDs illegal. There might be issues with doctors when they encounter non-induced miscarriages although since fully 1/3 of pregnancies end by miscarriage, I think they might simply have to get over themselves. There would be issues with women who have cancer since many forms of cancer treatment are very harmful or even deadly to a fetus. Would a woman diagnosed with cancer be forced to delay treatment until she gives birth?
>

Basically, the process of making abortion illegal again would carry with it so many related issues that it would take years (if that, given how slow the House and Senate are) to address them all. (And in the process, those affected by those issues would likely suffer.)

> And of course, there is the whole enforcement issue. The truth is that very few people I have met who are pro-life have actually thought about how a ban on abortion would be enforced. I can't think of any practical way to enforce it.
> ---------------------------------

Yeesh. I don't even want to think about that. God knows what some Pro-Lifers would do if given the opportunity to enforce a law against abortion. Especially in the South. *shudder* Not to mention that it'd be incredibly invasive to prove the "crime" had even taken place...and frankly, Americans can say they're okay with giving up freedoms for "the good of all," but when it comes down to it, we're all spoiled rotten and wouldn't want to do so, much less for something that is, to quite a few people, a grey area.

Can you imagine a patriotic, anti-abortionist one day having officers pushing into his/her home with the claim that a daughter had had an abortion and they had to blah blah blah? Hah, I'd like to see it. >:P

Actually, an anti-abortionist I know (I won't say Pro-Lifer since he thinks people should be shot when they commit a nasty crime >_>) didn't even think of the implications you and I brought up here and was a bit peturbed when I spoke with him on some of them. >:P He still held fast to his ideal...but it wasn't so cut-and-dried anymore. ^_^
Bowwow
post #51  on July 6, 2005 - 8:37 PM PDT  
Oh I know. How would one enforce such a law? I mean, women would flock over the border to Canada for abortions. Would they give pregnancy tests at the border? Hardly. Would a ban on abortions significantly reduce the number of abortions? Probably not really except among the very poor.

Battie
post #52  on July 6, 2005 - 9:43 PM PDT  
> On July 6, 2005 - 8:37 PM PDT Bowwow wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Oh I know. How would one enforce such a law? I mean, women would flock over the border to Canada for abortions. Would they give pregnancy tests at the border? Hardly. Would a ban on abortions significantly reduce the number of abortions? Probably not really except among the very poor.
> ---------------------------------

Well...it's kinda like a Christian saying that Jesus says not to judge, but then turning around and telling someone they'll "burn in hell" for doing whatever it is that's sinful. (Yes, there are Christians who actually follow the faith they think of--I've met many.) Or better yet, the American politician who says peace is needed throughout the world and American can help...then agreeing that America needed to attack and invade Iraq! Muwahahaha! (This sounds very liberal and superior...but I think it's all amusing.)

See, it's appearances. It doesn't necessarily matter if we're actually accomplishing the goal.

Every now and then a topic here inspires me to think of a little plot in a story, but I always refuse to actually write what I'm thinking. ^_^

But in this case...in a Twilight Zone futuristic sort of thing, not only will abortion be illegal, but infertility will be so high as to cause the population to decline. But there are reasons why women don't want children! Good ones! So, periodically, all women are checked to see if they've had an abortion, due, of course, to just such a thing happening at a rather high percentage among women.

(Of course, this would never happen, but I find it strangely interesting to think of the minute possibility--that, and with the utterly implausible horror movie plots that pop up, at least mine is somewhere in the realm of possibility--but somewhere far behind to aliens coming to earth and wiping us all out, ha!)
dpowers
post #53  on July 6, 2005 - 10:17 PM PDT  
jesus was against poverty, too. you'd think people would go for the larger of the two targets...
woozy
post #54  on July 6, 2005 - 11:50 PM PDT  
> On July 6, 2005 - 10:17 PM PDT dpowers wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> jesus was against poverty, too. you'd think people would go for the larger of the two targets...
> ---------------------------------


Jesus was against abortions? That's news to me. (Not that it matters but...)
Bowwow
post #55  on July 7, 2005 - 1:43 PM PDT  
> On July 6, 2005 - 9:43 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------

> Every now and then a topic here inspires me to think of a little plot in a story, but I always refuse to actually write what I'm thinking. ^_^
>
> But in this case...in a Twilight Zone futuristic sort of thing, not only will abortion be illegal, but infertility will be so high as to cause the population to decline. But there are reasons why women don't want children! Good ones! So, periodically, all women are checked to see if they've had an abortion, due, of course, to just such a thing happening at a rather high percentage among women.
>
> (Of course, this would never happen, but I find it strangely interesting to think of the minute possibility--that, and with the utterly implausible horror movie plots that pop up, at least mine is somewhere in the realm of possibility--but somewhere far behind to aliens coming to earth and wiping us all out, ha!)
> ---------------------------------

Hey, that plot sounds like Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. Well sort of. I mean, in that book abortion was illegal and infertility was really high and they were all about invading the rights and privacy of women.

woozy
post #56  on July 7, 2005 - 2:26 PM PDT  
> Hey, that plot sounds like Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. Well sort of. I mean, in that book abortion was illegal and infertility was really high and they were all about invading the rights and privacy of women.
>
>
> ---------------------------------

Hmm, I don't know much about u.s. political law. *was* abortion illegal pre-1972 under federal law. If a conservative supreme court overturns Roe vs. Wade could the court possibly rule abortions themselves are unconstitutional? Assuming not, it'd be congress' role to make abortion illegal, wouldn't it? It's easy to see how there was a federal law pre-Roe v. Wade but do you think think it'd be a federal law again? Or individual states? Or flex back and forth?

Scrod!

Battie
post #57  on July 7, 2005 - 4:47 PM PDT  
> On July 7, 2005 - 1:43 PM PDT Bowwow wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Hey, that plot sounds like Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. Well sort of. I mean, in that book abortion was illegal and infertility was really high and they were all about invading the rights and privacy of women.
> ---------------------------------

Lmao! Never heard of the book...but now I think I'll look for it. >:P
Battie
post #58  on July 7, 2005 - 5:00 PM PDT  
> On July 7, 2005 - 2:26 PM PDT woozy wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Hmm, I don't know much about u.s. political law. *was* abortion illegal pre-1972 under federal law. If a conservative supreme court overturns Roe vs. Wade could the court possibly rule abortions themselves are unconstitutional? Assuming not, it'd be congress' role to make abortion illegal, wouldn't it? It's easy to see how there was a federal law pre-Roe v. Wade but do you think think it'd be a federal law again? Or individual states? Or flex back and forth?
>
> Scrod!
> ---------------------------------

Jane Roe brought the case to federal court claiming the state of Texas was violating her rights. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor by saying that making abortion illegal was a violation of a woman's constitutional rights (I believe on privacy?), but left the issue open for states to regulate it (such as what Bowwow mentioned).

To overturn the case now would revert it back to states, and they'd have to make it illegal again...but you'd bet a number of states would jump on it immediately.

Well, I guess the question is, would anti-abortionists bring a case to federal court saying abortion is unconstitutional (I somehow doubt it, since it'd be hard to prove it's murder to abort a fetus), or just try to have Roe vs. Wade overturned? Again.
woozy
post #59  on July 7, 2005 - 6:47 PM PDT  
> Well, I guess the question is, would anti-abortionists bring a case to federal court saying abortion is unconstitutional (I somehow doubt it, since it'd be hard to prove it's murder to abort a fetus), or just try to have Roe vs. Wade overturned? Again.
> ---------------------------------

What *do* the judges who disagree with Roe vs. Wade argue. I don't think even the most conservative judges want to say abortion is unconstitutional (violates the rights of the fetus) but to overturn R v. Wade wouldn't they need a reason to demonstrate the states have a valid reason to ban abortion that overrides the previously expressed opinion of the womans right to privacy. Can't imagine that congress will ever ban it federally or that states such as California and Nevada and Alaska or Hawaii will ban it. Was it banned in *all* fifty states pre-72 or federally banned? I can't really imagine anyone finding a system where some states allow and others don't when it's such a fundimental effect on ones life. I mean, suppose, for sake of argument, some state chose to illegalize adoption. Can we really accept a nation where some woman can my such a child-rearing chose and another woman can't? Heck, as long as I'm hypothesizing, what if some state figuring women don't have right to end pregnancies figure they equally don't have the right to persue pregnancy, suppose some state passes a law that all pregnancies among non-adult girls (under 18) *must* be aborted. How would other states tolerate such? I don't know, it just seems to me R v. Wade is the only acceptable conclussion. Well, abortion = murder is logical and consistant I guess.



Bowwow
post #60  on July 7, 2005 - 8:45 PM PDT  
> On July 7, 2005 - 4:47 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------

>
> Lmao! Never heard of the book...but now I think I'll look for it. >:P
> ---------------------------------

Well, there is a movie version but it isnt anywhere near as good as the book. The book is downright scary especially considering the religious right and the political power they have shown in the last two elections.
page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  >>      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.