Comments on: This is why. http://www.robandjen.com/jen/2008/06/05/this-is-why-2/ Female. Geek. Gamer. Reader. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:13:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: jenbooks http://www.robandjen.com/jen/2008/06/05/this-is-why-2/#comment-1796 jenbooks Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:46:11 +0000 http://jenbooks.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/this-is-why/#comment-1796 I agree. A person who is 8 years old is far more important that one who is 28, and <i>infinitely</i> more important than one who is 80. Pfeh. Potential is all well and good, but there's something to be said for experience and accomplishments. I agree. A person who is 8 years old is far more important that one who is 28, and infinitely more important than one who is 80. Pfeh.
Potential is all well and good, but there’s something to be said for experience and accomplishments.

]]> By: hearmemeep http://www.robandjen.com/jen/2008/06/05/this-is-why-2/#comment-1795 hearmemeep Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:10:52 +0000 http://jenbooks.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/this-is-why/#comment-1795 And yet I know so many people who would say that these woman deserve the death they receive from trying to abort the child - with or without a medical doctor. *sigh* While I do think that life is very precious and that decisions like that shouldn't be made lightly, why is it that the life of something that has yet to even see the world is valued over the life of someone who has loved, lost, and lived with so many people who love them in turn as well? That's something I still fail to understand about the debate... :/ And yet I know so many people who would say that these woman deserve the death they receive from trying to abort the child – with or without a medical doctor. *sigh*
While I do think that life is very precious and that decisions like that shouldn’t be made lightly, why is it that the life of something that has yet to even see the world is valued over the life of someone who has loved, lost, and lived with so many people who love them in turn as well? That’s something I still fail to understand about the debate… :/

]]> By: indulgent_el http://www.robandjen.com/jen/2008/06/05/this-is-why-2/#comment-1794 indulgent_el Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:11:58 +0000 http://jenbooks.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/this-is-why/#comment-1794 I agree, the 4th amendment could be interpreted that way. And if this is the argument for Roe v Wade, I (in my totally untrained unlawerly opinion) would agree that the ruling is more solid than I indicated in my previous message. I haven't studied this too much, but it sounds like there's a lot to think about. I agree about the government keeping their noses out of health care. I agree, the 4th amendment could be interpreted that way. And if this is the argument for Roe v Wade, I (in my totally untrained unlawerly opinion) would agree that the ruling is more solid than I indicated in my previous message. I haven’t studied this too much, but it sounds like there’s a lot to think about.
I agree about the government keeping their noses out of health care.

]]> By: jenbooks http://www.robandjen.com/jen/2008/06/05/this-is-why-2/#comment-1793 jenbooks Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:04:56 +0000 http://jenbooks.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/this-is-why/#comment-1793 You make perfect sense. And I hope you're right about RvW. I'm not sure that privacy <i>isn't</i> in the Constitution though: 4th amendment right to be secure in persons and papers. <blockquote>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.</blockquote> I can see arguments where that wouldn't apply, and where it would. I dunno, but I'm reading more history and the Supreme court doesn't always "interpret" the Constitution the same way, and presidents have ignored them before - it's interesting looking at how the balance was defined and shifted in the first decades of the Union. I'm afraid too many of the people we've elected (or not) give lip service at best to that "fucking piece of paper". All <i>I</i> know is I'm reaaaaally uncomfortable with the government interfering with the health care that I and my doctor choose. :) You make perfect sense. And I hope you’re right about RvW.
I’m not sure that privacy isn’t in the Constitution though: 4th amendment right to be secure in persons and papers.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can see arguments where that wouldn’t apply, and where it would. I dunno, but I’m reading more history and the Supreme court doesn’t always “interpret” the Constitution the same way, and presidents have ignored them before – it’s interesting looking at how the balance was defined and shifted in the first decades of the Union.
I’m afraid too many of the people we’ve elected (or not) give lip service at best to that “fucking piece of paper”.
All I know is I’m reaaaaally uncomfortable with the government interfering with the health care that I and my doctor choose. :)

]]> By: indulgent_el http://www.robandjen.com/jen/2008/06/05/this-is-why-2/#comment-1792 indulgent_el Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:52:18 +0000 http://jenbooks.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/this-is-why/#comment-1792 I think that Roe v Wade is something of a . . . I don't know the word. It's not very stable and thus I think it's caused much of the rift between left and right. Not because of abortion, per se. First, conservatives have various opinions on abortion. My conservative view is that we should err on the side of individual liberty and thus I support the right. Second, unless I misunderstand, the Supreme Court exists to uphold the constitution, and for that purpose alone. Third, there is no constitutional right to privacy (which is how the right to abortion is framed, unless I again misunderstand). IMO, A supreme court judge, whether conservative or liberal in personal beliefs, should uphold the constitution. As a conservative, I believe this. Were I a liberal, I would believe this. The reason that I believe it is that I want a document that frames what somebody in power can do, because I don't know who will be in political power in the future. If that were not the case, we could elect a Hitler. I don't like the idea of tyranny by majority. So the issue is that Roe v Wade puts people who want to retain the right to abortion in the position of being concerned about strict constitutionalist judges, because the decision was not (in my view) strictly constitutional. What we really need(ed) is a constitutional amendment. Of course, it wouldn't pass at this juncture. That said, I don't think that Roe v Wade is going anywhere. I think it's done and will not be reviewed again by the courts. Of course, I could be wrong. I hope that I made sense. I think that Roe v Wade is something of a . . . I don’t know the word. It’s not very stable and thus I think it’s caused much of the rift between left and right. Not because of abortion, per se.
First, conservatives have various opinions on abortion. My conservative view is that we should err on the side of individual liberty and thus I support the right.
Second, unless I misunderstand, the Supreme Court exists to uphold the constitution, and for that purpose alone.
Third, there is no constitutional right to privacy (which is how the right to abortion is framed, unless I again misunderstand).
IMO, A supreme court judge, whether conservative or liberal in personal beliefs, should uphold the constitution. As a conservative, I believe this. Were I a liberal, I would believe this. The reason that I believe it is that I want a document that frames what somebody in power can do, because I don’t know who will be in political power in the future. If that were not the case, we could elect a Hitler. I don’t like the idea of tyranny by majority.
So the issue is that Roe v Wade puts people who want to retain the right to abortion in the position of being concerned about strict constitutionalist judges, because the decision was not (in my view) strictly constitutional. What we really need(ed) is a constitutional amendment. Of course, it wouldn’t pass at this juncture.
That said, I don’t think that Roe v Wade is going anywhere. I think it’s done and will not be reviewed again by the courts. Of course, I could be wrong.
I hope that I made sense.

]]>