The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Mrs. John Roberts: Exec VP of Feminists for Life
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:27 AM |
 |
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:29 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:03 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:31 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:32 AM
I've never been this impressed with W in 6 years. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:33 AM
I really didn't like him at all at first, but strategy-wise he is perfect. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:36 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:38 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:41 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:45 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:46 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:19 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:30 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:31 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:13 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:44 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:31 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:33 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:17 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:34 AM
1. JRB as Chief 2. Luttig |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:35 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:37 AM
And you never know. CJR could go at any time, and Souter might be jogging at night and get killed.
I do like Roberts. He's fucking 50! 50! 50! |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:37 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:38 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:39 AM
But Luttig is awesome. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:41 AM
I'd prefer an Alito/Roberts type over a TTT AA female/minority appointment anyday. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:44 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:36 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:51 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:52 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:55 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:02 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:02 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:08 AM
Are they saying "reproductive rights" aren't necessary a part of the women's rights movement? |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:14 AM
And I think its pretty clear that your first reaction was to try and fit a pro-choice ideology into their group, which is exactly the reason they exist. Call it an assumption. Call it something else. You still did it. Not blaming you or calling you dumb or anything, but that's their point. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:32 AM
For instance, if you're for woman making independant decisions for themselves - I can't understand the argument that reproductive decisions don't count, especially when their phsyical/emotional health is at hand. If you subscribe to the belief that women ought to have equal rights under the law (the basic tenents of feminism), then how exactly is making choices on your personal [reproductive] health not a right?
I'm scouring through their site for some literature but you have to sign up to read anything on their site.
|
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:56 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:28 AM
"If you subscribe to the belief that women ought to have equal rights under the law (the basic tenents of feminism), then how exactly is making choices on your personal [reproductive] health not a right?"
A) Some choices we feel are simply impermissible for anyone to make. Say, the choice to sacrifice children to the sun god. If one believes that abortion is simply murder then its not a choice women should have. The choice that a woman had was not to have sex and take the risk of pregnancy.
B) The restriction is not really sexist. A man would be prohibited from performing abortions, and men often benefit from abortions.
Therefore, one could be a feminist and be pro-life. There is nothing inherently conflicting in the two beliefs. Nevertheless, there is also nothing to suggest that both beliefs are anything other than stupid and annoying for entirely different reasons. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:35 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:42 AM
Most pro-lifers would accept abortion if a mother's health was in danger, but anything less they wouldn't accept since they value the life of the fetus equally to that of the mothers. Which seems pretty nuts to me... But as a result I doubt this is the primary issue driving the pro-choice feminists.
I think pro-choice feminists view it as a fundamental liberty issue. Women have traditionally been prohibited from competing with men on equal footing due to their historical (and sometimes forced) role as a birth-giver. The ability to control reproduction allowed women control of their destiny. The choice of mother vs. career women was theirs and theirs alone to make. But I agree with your conclusion that in the end they're just looking at it from a different angle.
|
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:21 AM
And "health of the mother" jurisprudence is a sham. Under Doe v. Bolton, the "health of the mother" exception can include anxiety. So, basically, the possibilty that you might be nervous about having a baby means that the health of the mother is at risk.
The bottom line is that there are 1,000,000 abortions a year in America and women seeking abortions come from the most underresourced communities. You think Kate Michaelman is having abortions? Please. The movement has for some reason become so powerful that a group of British doctors who discovered a powerful correlation between abortion and breast cancer have had their research suppressed.
Feminists for Life believes that abortion is actually harmful to women -- their slogan is "women deserve better." I have to say I agree. I've always been a Democrat-voting liberal and this is the one issue where I think Democrats are going horribly wrong. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:27 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:35 AM
While we're at it, why should she have to decide she doesn't want it *before* it's born? She should have at least six months to decide if she likes it. Maybe a year. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:54 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 10:27 AM
And that logical disconnect is the dumbest thing about the pro-choice movement. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:39 PM
I don't see the logical disconnect you speak of. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 12:40 PM
I think poor single mothers should feel comfortable knowing their babies will be supported if they choose to give birth. I just don't think they should be forced to have children against their will.
I personally believe abortion of infants should be legal. Like social conservatives, I see a continuum between an embryo and a baby. It's tough to come up with a moral philosophical basis for when it's OK to take a human life. I've developed my own views, which I won't elaborate on, except to say that I believe a woman should be able to non-painfully terminate her infant's life. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:30 AM
No, to be fair it isn't.
"The population control expert and the abortion doctor (both men, I might add) who founded NARAL inflated the back-alley abortion death numbers and all other statistics astronomically."
So back alley abortions are reasonably safe so its okay to ban abortion or what? Regardless, did you not read my post? Health considerations are not the primary driver of the pro-choice movement.
"They have, however, succeeded in somehow convincing women that their absolute autonomy to "choose" should outweigh every other consideration."
That was the logic that led to the creation of this country...
"The bottom line is that there are 1,000,000 abortions a year in America and women seeking abortions come from the most underresourced communities."
Good. That's better than an extra 1,000,000 kids in America's most underresourced communities.
"The movement has for some reason become so powerful that a group of British doctors who discovered a powerful correlation between abortion and breast cancer have had their research suppressed."
I'm going to have to put this in the same folder as "creation science." And even if true this wouldn't support a conclusion that abortion should be banned since it would be up to the individual to weigh risks and costs associated with child birth against the risks and costs associated with abortion.
"Feminists for Life believes that abortion is actually harmful to women -- their slogan is "women deserve better." I have to say I agree."
Then you're not very bright. Its an idiotic slogan, and presumes that being forced to either a) have a child against your will or b) have an illegal abortion is somehow better.
"I've always been a Democrat-voting liberal and this is the one issue where I think Democrats are going horribly wrong."
I'm a generally Republican voting libertarian, and I have to say that this is one of the only issues where the Dems have it right.
|
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:36 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:52 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:34 AM
Why is it so unreasonable for anxiety to be considered a health risk? Have you ever heard of a "nervous breakdown?"
Yes, women do deserve better--inexpensive reproductive health care and contraceptives should be more readily available. Too bad that the majority of "pro-life" activists want to make it more difficult for women to obtain these things. I could not figure out what the Feminists for Life organization's position is on this, because they do not address this issue on their website. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:11 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:13 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:14 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:15 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:16 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:21 AM
|
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:15 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:16 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:17 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:20 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:33 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:51 AM
2) Unlike the Women's Movement which has firmly established principles that are essentially universally adhered to, this "Culture of Life" is unsettled and certainly not an understood political ideology. It is a nebulous term with roots in the Catholic Church but over 70% of American Catholics support the death penalty. So the notion that when one adopts the "culture of life" they adopt an anti-death penalty stance is very tenuous in an American context.
I suppose I see the point you're making, but its neither interesting, nor informative on the discussion at hand. I think "off topic and over simplified" still applies. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:04 AM
you can't rely on what american cafeteria catholics believe to define a term differently than it has been expressly defined by the leader of that religion |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:08 AM
Despite your declaration, that's exactly what he's doing. And that's what the overwhelming majority of American Catholics are doing. And that's why comparing the highly structured, single minded Women's Lib Movement to Bush's use of the Culture of Life is a crappy, over-simplified comparison. Say what you want about the validity of how Bush and American Catholics interpret this "culture" (and I have no doubt you will), but that is NOT WHAT THIS THREAD WAS ABOUT. Clear? |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:20 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:21 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:29 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:44 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:39 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:47 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 1:48 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 2:32 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:17 AM |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:46 AM
What a festering catholic TTT. Her dad probably raped her as a child. |
|
Date: July 20th, 2005 9:56 AM
*crosses fingers* |