Liberals Are Not Pro-Abortion

Published on January 28, 2006 By stevendedalus In Politics

Most of us considerably left of center do not think of ourselves as pro-abortion. Rather, it is up to the woman, and perhaps the man implicated, who must under trying circumstance make the weighty decision to abort. Contrary to the conservative perception, liberals do not encourage abortion, but simply that it is out of the jurisdiction of politics even though some may indeed think of it as a questionable murderous process resting with the individual conscience of the decision-maker[s]. Many liberals do feel that it is rightfully a religious matter for the devoted who should seek religious counsel. Liberals do not publicly frown on those who for whatever reason make the momentous choice.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 4)

Dr Guy

on Jan 31, 2006

I'm a liberal, and I'm pro-abortion. The more, the merrier.
Hardly a liberal view but rather a view of a super race.

Unfortunately, that is what the left has been pushed into. There are exceptions.

But think about this. What if Roe V Wade was over turned. Abortion would not be illegal except in 15 states. But what would the arguement then turn to? What would the left's position be, versus the anti-abortion right?

Now, which is more defensible?

davad70

on Jan 31, 2006

Now we face more conservatives on the court that, just maybe, might let things belonging in the realm of the Legislators stay within the realm of the Legislators, rather than creating laws from the Bench. What can possibly be wrong with that?

Yeah! Just like Alito did with the Rybar case, saying that congress had no right to regulate machine guns! Oh wait...he did just the opposite of what you're saying.

U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), was a case considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a federal appeals court that has jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, Delaware, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Judge Alito's home state of New Jersey.

A three-judge panel of the Court heard the case, and Alito disagreed with his two colleagues. Alito argued in a dissenting opinion that the federal ban on the possession of fully automatic, repeating machine guns - a law that has been on the books in some form since 1934 - is unconstitutional. The Rybar case involved a gun dealer, Raymond Rybar, who unlawfully possessed a "Chinese Type 54, 7.62-millimeter submachine gun" and a "U.S. Military M-3, .45 caliber submachine gun." Id. at 275. In his dissent, Alito argued that Congress may have no power to regulate "the simple possession of a firearm," as this "is not 'economic' or 'commercial' activity..." Id. at 292.

The two appeals judges who formed the majority in the Rybar case dismissed Alito's dissent in harsh terms. Noting that Alito's opinion would require that Congress make specific findings as to a link between possessing a machine gun and its effect on interstate commerce, the majority said that "making such a demand of Congress or the Executive runs counter to the deference that the judiciary owes to its two coordinate branches of government, a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers." The law, the majority wrote, did not require Congress or the executive branch "to play Show and Tell with the federal courts at the peril of invalidation of a Congressional statute." Id. at 282.

All but one of the other federal appeals courts to have considered the law in the wake of the 1995 Supreme Court decision that Alito extrapolated from, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), have agreed with the Rybar majority - and not Alito. The one court that arguably disagreed with the Rybar majority (based on slightly different facts) later had its judgment vacated by the Supreme Court. The courts in these cases have overwhelmingly rejected Alito's cramped view of Congress' law-making authority - and his over-inflated view of the power of judges to strike down laws. These many decisions represent a consensus - to which Alito apparently does not subscribe - that Congress can enact laws limiting the possession and transfer of dangerous weapons and thereby protect public safety.

Moderateman

on Jan 31, 2006

Oh My GOD!! A scotus that does not read new things in the constitution? What will we all do? being forced to have the rule of law , be the law that is there not the law some liberal thinks is there.

As rightwinger said the liberals have had there way the last 40 years in that time the country has been flushed down the toilet btw. OUR TURN! LIVE WITH IT! orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr you could keep your word and move to another country.

bakerstreet

on Jan 31, 2006

dems generally don't like it when the federal government twists vaguely related laws to impose their will on the states. That's what Alito was arguing in the gun decision. Possession of a firearm ISN'T commerce, and they were just stretching whatever law they could to get the guy.

If that was half a pound of pot and the Federal government was twisting a law to charge him federally, all the bleeding heart dems would scream about how they were muscling in. It was a gun, though, so no amount of government imposition is enough to frighten them.

davad70

on Jan 31, 2006

It's amazing how you guys want it both ways. You say you want the legislature to make the laws and not the courts. You bitch and moan about judges "legislating from the bench" and being "activist judges", but you excuse it when it's one of your own that does it. I guess it's ok in this case, as it supports a federalist agenda.

bakerstreet

on Jan 31, 2006

Eh, huh? Don't for a moment sit there, especially on this subject, and put the "federalist" label on me, davad. Alito was trying to prevent trumped up federal imposition there.

YOU are the one that says the federal government should come up with trumped up "commerce" charges to put someone in jail for breaking a gun law in the STATE'S jurisdiction. YOU are the one saying that the Supreme Court should prevent states from making their own mind up about abortion.

If your beloved, black-robed federal bully turns on you and starts imposing things YOU don't like, don't blame us. That's a practice that the Left has been refining for the last 40 years. I won't excuse it if the federal government imposes upon you. I'll gladly call it a wrong. I'll also laugh my ass off at you.

Moderateman

on Jan 31, 2006

I guess reading and interpreting the law as written is "activism" to the left.

stutefish

on Jan 31, 2006

Well, at least we can all agree that by the same token, not all conservatives are pro-war. Rather we believe that it is the Executive (charged with the grave responsibility of national defense by the Constitution) "who must under trying circumstance[s] make the weighty decision" to go to war.

So there's that cleared up, then.

davad70

on Jan 31, 2006

YOU are the one that says the federal government should come up with trumped up "commerce" charges to put someone in jail for breaking a gun law in the STATE'S jurisdiction.

That was not my point, nor is it what I said. I made pretty clear what my point was. You want congress to make the laws and in this case they did, and it was not Alito's place to attempt to ignore that law.

YOU are the one saying that the Supreme Court should prevent states from making their own mind up about abortion.

Really? I didn't even bring the issue of abortion up in my post, so I'm not even going to respond to that one.

bakerstreet

on Jan 31, 2006

Nice dodge, but you are the one tossing the word Federalist around. In reality, I differed with the FEDERAL law in question because it ate into state's rights. I differ with Roe v. Wade because it acts as some sort of imperial mandate, also taking the right of the states to decide for themselves.

Dodge if you like, but you a) supported the federal government's imposition in terms of the gun law, and

support the Supreme Courts imposition of made-up rights, so calling me a "Federalist" is kind of wacky.

I think Alito is right about the Rybar case. I don't think the Federal government has ANY right to regulate private ownership of an item that isn't a matter of interstate traffic or commerce. inch by inch they make all state matters federal until finally state's rights are meaningless.

Rightwinger

on Feb 01, 2006

Back to you, davad:

People don't usually wear shirts that affirm their belief in something that is common sense or "the norm". If they're going to wear a shirt that has any political theme to it, it's more often than not, going to be anti-establishment.

---davad

Granted, but abortion is such a hotly-debated topic that a show of support from that side would seem indicated, especially with the big, bad Alito howling at the door.

We have several anti-bush/cheney shirts...I think around 5 or 6 maybe, and they all sell fairly well, especially "Meet The Fuckers", which features a picture of Bush & Cheney.

---davad

Now...+LOL+ this ties into something I said on another thread.
Why do people on the left so often seem to think they have to be rude or obscene to show disrespect? There's no call at all for such a phrase to even be printed on a shirt. I've seen pictures from anti-Bush rallies with pictures of penises with Karl Rove's picture on the head; the caption? "Roving Cock".
They think it's cute or something, I guess. It isn't. It just shows the lefties to be over-the-top with their hate and frustration.

Abortion IS the establishment, that's why I don't think you see that on shirts.

---davad

But I DO see that on shirts. I mean, I'm not making this up out of think air. I saw a girl with one not too long ago at Wal-Mart, in fact.

What store do you work for? Hot Topic, perhaps?
If so, I can see why you have such "anti-establishment" wares. Everything they have has to be "shocking and rebellious". It's where the Goth weirdos shop. The "body-art" crowd.
I went in there once, looking for a Punisher t-shirt or hat. They had some cool t's, but my credit isn't good enough to get a loan for that high a price. The hats were 25 bucks, but they weren't embroidered. They wanted that much for a simple silkscreen!

If you did throw in some anti-abortion t's, just for kicks and giggles, I think they might sell better than you'd think they would. But then, maybe the people you sell to aren't that big on the morality and values thing.

Texas Wahine

on Feb 01, 2006

I mean, I'm not making this up out of think air. I saw a girl with one not too long ago at Wal-Mart, in fact.

I used to have Pro-Life checks.

Rightwinger

on Feb 01, 2006

I used to have Pro-Life checks.

---Tex W.

Hey! Are you followin' me? So you approved of V-Day's itinerary?

"Pro-life checks"---would that be anything like Wheat Chex or Rice Chex?

Texas Wahine

on Feb 01, 2006

Hey! Are you followin' me? So you approved of V-Day's itinerary?

You noticed?

Hehe.

"Pro-life checks"---would that be anything like Wheat Chex or Rice Chex?

Yup. Available for sale at your friendly Republican supermarket.

Dr Guy

on Feb 01, 2006

but you excuse it when it's one of your own that does it. I guess it's ok in this case, as it supports a federalist agenda.

Like, when? Bad move. Again you rail with no justification. Tsk, tsk.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!