Great, another right-wing fanatic.
New York Times, 10/31
He's not as bad as that little snippet makes him sound.
Just reading a little bit of his actual statement makes it all much more logical and sensible.
"The Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems — such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition — that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." while also adding some exceptions: "These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes that (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her."
He's a conservative, but I've yet to see any real evidence that he's a nutjob
How can one be a conservative and not a nutjob? I didn't realize that was possible. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Forcing women to tell their husbands before having an abortion is not a justified law. You can come up with some arguments supporting it, but, overall, it isn't the right decision to make. I dislike this guy for a SC justice because I suspect he is pro-life.
Oh no! I have to tell my husband before I kill his son/daughter! Man, he is a real fanatic.
So pro-choice would be better?
Of course. A pro-choice person is more likely to have the characteristics required to be a SC Justice. Anyone who can't make proper moral decisions certainly isn't qualified to make interpret the law.
Abortion is not murder. It is the destruction of a theoretical being because of the will of the individual. The only thing that dies is a concept. Religious influences may cause abuse if the husband finds out about the abortion. If the relationship is sound in the first place, she will probably tell her husband. Abortion is a woman's right. Individuals have the right to not tell their families when they are about to die. When a fetus, something that is the property of a woman, is about to be destroyed, the woman has the right to choose who becomes aware its destruction.
I'd certainly like to know if my wife was getting an abortion, but I can understand the constitutional basis of the striking of this law. If we are to consider the fetus/embryo to simply be an appendage of the woman's body, like a finger or an appendix, then her husband does not have the right to know what she does or does not with it. We get fuzzy, however, because there is no constitutional reason to consider the embryo/fetus to be nothing more than a female appendage; that is simply the personal concensus of the justices.
That said, if this justice believes that an embryo/fetus is a separate life-form that is as much the father's responsibility as the mother's, then his ruling is in accord with the right to privacy inferred from the 14th amendment. (Is it the 14th?) This doesn't even require us to grant autonomy or personhood to the embryo/fetus and hardly makes him a fanatic or a nutjob.
Their proposed law didn't give the husand any right to stop the abortion. It just said he should know about it - presumably so both parties could make an informed decision about their future relationship. Denying that knowledge is basically a statement that the husband's desires about a family don't matter. He has no right to know what his wife's family desires are and the husband just has to live with whatever the wife decides.
I'm sorry friend, but adhering to your personal vision of morality is not a requirement for practicing proper constitutional law. That is flat-out ridiculous. I thought it was the position of liberals that one should not impose one's personal morals upon another.
Besides, his dissent requires only that he hold an ontological position that the fetus is a being separate from its mother. If that is the case, then she has no right to privacy as regards it, and requiring notification simply becomes a legal stance, not a moral one.
You're assuming that the husband is the father.
Why do pro-choice people have more morality than pro-life? Is it only because they share your opinion? I suppose anyone who doesn't see things your way is automatically immoral.
Theoretical? A fetus isn't a concept, why would you say something so absurd? It is a real living thing, it isn't make-believe. A fetus would only be a concept before it was conceived, when the parents are still planning to have a baby in their minds. Then it would be an idea.
Oh yeah, because religious people are the only ones barbaric enough to abuse their spouses. A non-religious person would never object to the killing of their child, because all non-religious people are moral, understanding people that are too mature to resort to physical violence.
That is a matter of debate, and simply because someone disagrees with this, doesn't make them a fanatic.
First of all, he didn't write any laws, he upheld the constitutionality of a law passed by the Pa. state legislature.
Are you joking me? I'm not sure of your gender, but as a guy, I'm 100% positive that I wouldn't want my wife aborting our baby without at least talking to me about it. How can you defend allowing one parent to terminate the life of their offspring without the consent of the other?
In his statement, he said that it would be proper to allow the woman to have an abortion if she knew that her husband wasn't the father.
Good one. :rofl:
That is even more controversial.
[To pick up where BobG replied to my post in another thread] Most couples discuss desires to have children before they marry, so I wonder how often this is an issue. Ultimately the woman is the one who must physically deal with pregnancy and childbirth. And typically if there is a divorce, it is the woman who has custody of the children, and often men abandon them. So it affects her far more than him. I do not see it as bad to inform the man of desire to abort, but I do not feel the man should be allowed to force the woman to have a child against her will. The woman should have the final say.
Back to the OP, if Bush wanted a conservative judge, there were plenty he could choose without dividing the country. As usual, he has shown lack of understanding of the role of the presidency.
The injustice would be if she said he wasn't but he, in fact, was the father.
A problem with prochoice is that the father doesn't get a choice. But he does get to pay child support for 18yrs. A different topic altogether. Fathers get the shaft regardless.
I didn't see anywhere that it said the husband should have veto power over the woman's desire to have an abortion, it just said that a woman needed to inform her husband before she went off and had an abortion.
Wait a second, WHAT?????
He said that it is not the courts right to change the law or not abide by the law. He simply followed the law, even if he did or did not like it. That's how it should be. If there is a law, and someone comes to my court because the person broke that law, than by all means prosecute the person. The judicial branch is made to interpret the law.
Law and morality can't be completely separated. Irregardless, how do you know he interpreted the law correctly? He was the only dissenter, and, if the court system is efficient, shouldn't the right decision have been made?
The religious abuse thing was an example. Most pro-life people happen to be on the right, and most people on the right are religious. I was just generalizing to make a point.
I am a guy, but I still feel women shouldn't be required to tell their husbands they are going to have an abortion. It's solely a woman's choice. However, I think men be able to have sex without worrying about having to support a child.
A man can't have a personal stake in genetic property that is attached to a woman. If that is the case, men should have an influence on everything pregnant woman do. Clearly freedom in Canada would side with woman on this issue, and I assume U.S freedoms would, too.
Genetically, a fetus is alive, but who decided that genetics determined whether something is alive? There are moral and philosophical components to the issue. I feel the fetus is property of the mother, and, if it is not valued by her, she can do away with it.
Something that has not contributed to society and is only linked to society through a woman is, as a result, property of the women until released into society as a separate entity. Until then, contributions made to society by the women (perhaps through bringing a child into the world) should be controlled by the woman as would be appropriate in a free society.
In any event, you could also cite Alito's concurrence in striking down New Jersey's partial birth abortion ban as unconstitutional. His reasoning:
The entire text can be reviewed on findlaw.com
Alito was born on April Fool's Day and was nominated on Halloween. Is that a bad sign? :rofl:
Separate names with a comma.