Fascinating perspective you have there. It doesn't matter to you that Miers isn't even moderately qualified for the job. All that matters is that she will overturn Roe v. Wade.

As to the left, I've always opposed her and have been happily surprised that some conservatives have too for sensible reasons. I have articles about it on my blog.

Here's my reason: it's impossible for the Senate to "advise" the president about a nominee that is basically a legal blank slate. Apparently, Bush is only interested in the "consent" potion of the constitution. Not surprising for a man who once said his job would be a lot easier if the USA was a dictatorship.
Dana Garrett | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 5:54 pm | #

It doesn't matter to you that Miers isn't even moderately qualified for the job. All that matters is that she will overturn Roe v. Wade.

You must be reading your own biases into what I wrote. I did not write that she was a good nomination, because she wasn't. I wrote that if she "overturned" the absurd reasoning of Roe, then that is the correct decision based on constitutional principles. It would not matter if a case came up in which the so-called "reasoning" of Roe was rejected if American women and men cannot hold to any sort of sexual ethic or responsibility. There is more to American life and the nation than some petty tyrants who believe that their diktats and Kulture Kampf from on high can change an entire culture. Roe did not change the entire culture, many states were making moves to legalize abortion already..and if many communities work against abortionist profiteers, the men who have sex with teenagers, etc., then abortion may in the end become illegal again. Given the history of abortion in America as well as other cultural issues, that is more the pattern to change than some imposition of the whims of oligarchs from on high. They think that they can define the principles of the people, but they don't.
mynym | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 8:44 pm | #

"imposition," you say? What law or court ruling compels women to have abortions?
Dana Garrett | Homepage | 10.17.05 - 9:06 pm | #

There are laws and court decisions that compel men to pay child support and a view is being imposed on them. Yet why do they have to pay when they do not have the choice to kill their offspring rather than taking responsiblity? It's all just the women's body and "tissue" to do with as they choose, after all. The women can choose to have sex and to kill their offspring, yet men who choose to have sex are compelled by law to pay for a women's choice about what is said to be nothing more than her own body. (Not to mention the fact that a women can kill their unborn son or daughter at any time.)

The imposition at issue as far as the topic of the Judiciary goes is that of your sort of "values" being imposed as a textually degenerate view from the top, without regard for any Jeffersonian process where what is moral resides in the people, which they may or may not make what is legal through the legislature or Constitutional amendment.

Leftist "values" can and have compelled young women to have abortions as their lack of judgment and sound discrimination permeates the culture, e.g.:

A Southern Illinois woman was arrested last week (March 17) after trying to intervene on behalf of her 14-year old daughter's effort to have an abortion. The girl was allegedly taken to an abortion clinic by the mother of the man allegedly to have impregnated the 14-year old.
[....]
She took a seat near the main desk and said, “I was told I could not prove my daughter was there so I began calling her name. A medical tech at the clinic told me , ‘It’s your daughter’s rights, it’s her body. You have no rights.’”After continuing to call out her daughter’s name and telling her “don’t do it,” authorities were called and the mother was arrested.
[....]
As the police were putting the mother in the squad car, she was crying out, “Please, please, help me...my daughter is in there.” Michaels said, “Exactly one hour later at 10:35 a.m., the 14-year old emerged from the clinic looking disheveled. The 14-year old told us that employees kept her in a quiet room until the procedure was performed and she was told that her mother had left.” Employees assured this girl on her departure, “No-one will ever know you were here, we’ll bury your records.”

In the meantime, the woman who had taken the girl for the abortion was slipped out the back door of the clinic.

The police in the community in which the family lives allegedly told the girl's mom that they couldn't intervene despite her making a charge that her daughter had been raped (by statute) because the charge was stale--7 weeks after the incident. They did tell the girl's mom that, while she had no right to stop the abortion, she did have a right to go into the clinic and speak to her daughter.[....]

Your post makes it sound like you are saying most abortions are happening to young woman who were impregnanted by older men and the abortion clinics are helping facilitate this in order to profit.

I have to disagree. Although I'm sure this happens I don't agree that it's the majority of cases.

These girls are teenagers who don't use birth control - plain and simple. Very few are over the age of 25. For whatever reason they don't want their parents to know that they are sexually active so they don't ask to be taken to the OB-GYN. I guess they aren't aware they can get on the pill without their parents' permission. They could also use other methods of birth control - or, preferably, abstain. Which is less likely to happen in this day and age - let's just be honest with ourselves.

At any rate, if they do become pregnant they are scared to tell their parents because of embarrassment, humiliation, abuse, etc. So they attempt to hide it by having an abortion.

If they do tell their parents sometimes their parents are telling them to have the abortion because they don't want their child's future to be burdened with having a child at a young age.

I know -- I had a child at a young age because I didn't want to have an abortion. My mother probably (at the time) would have rather seen me have an abortion being as she had me at a young age and knew first hand what I was in store for. Every parent wants better for their child.

The abortion debate is not as cut and dry as some would like it to be. When you are dealing with real people who are all different with individual wants, needs and desires you can't categorize.

How is it affecting me if a woman desides to have an abortion? Here's a clue: If she didn't want to have a child but was forced into it because she had no other choice (after she became pregnant -- choices abound beforehand) wouldn't it affect society more so? Now you have a child born to a mother who a) doesn't want them; b) can't care for them; c) most likely without a father in the picture; d) on financial assistance and e) probably without a bright future when it comes to being a successful and productive member of society.
Ellie | 10.19.05 - 4:00 pm | #

These girls are teenagers who don't use birth control - plain and simple. Very few are over the age of 25.

It's impossible to know because abortionist profiteers keep themselves utterly unaccountable by hiding in and among the American Left that cannot even allow partial birth abortion to be defined as such, let alone known as the infanticide that it is. They've reached a state of unnacountability and a lack of regulation that any other industry would pay millions, if not billions for (When it comes to drug companies). Yet it is interesting, there are some industries that the Left is not "watchful" about, like pornographers and abortionists. They'll regulate that a construction company not allow its workers to chew gum and work on a roof at the same time, yet when it comes to abortionists the amount of regulation approaches nil.

They're so protected from any form of accountability that it seems there is no way of knowing. It is not as if they report statutory rapes. Instead, the general pattern seems to be to work with the rapists. The question is, how often? It is most likely a rather sizeable minority of cases.

[Holding to a sexual ethic] is less likely to happen in this day and age - let's just be honest with ourselves.

That depends on what "day and age" you compare this one to. Americans forget that although what has been called the "Greatest Generation" was conservative... (Yet the baby boom of the 1950s gave rise to the generation of the 60s, when the greatest generation didn't seem to raise its kids so great.) ...before then the American Republic was similar to the Weimar Republic with its eugenics movement and so on, and a seamy underside is always there. And farther back, before the 1900s, abortion rates per capita were actually higher in the past than say, the 1990s. (That's just last time I read a historical comparison. They're probably about the same still.) I'll have to go back and verify some things to make sure I have it right, but as I recall abortion was questionable legally (While seldom prosecuted even if it was illegal.) and then was gradually outlawed after a grassroots movement had succeeded in changing the culture.

How is it affecting me if a woman desides to have an abortion?

That's not the right question if you are talking about what is moral. Although the legal is not even an issue that Americans are "allowed" to deal with anyway, one way or another, given the federal Judiciary's penchant for deciding everything for the people.

Yet morally, we do not say that a women can make a choice to stab her child in the back of the neck with a pair of scissors provided that it has no affect on others or has some good social utility. Instead we say that such a choice is immoral, given the nature of unalienable human rights.
mynym | Homepage | 10.19.05 - 5:27 pm | #

free home manufactured refinance free home manufactured refinance free home manufactured refinance. advance cash nevada payday advance cash nevada payday advance cash nevada payday.
bltceri | Homepage | 08.25.07 - 3:07 pm | #