 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
blackice
|
 |
Canada where else...
Sep 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Anti-abortion bias obvious
Media ignore change of heart by women who made it legal
KATHLEEN PARKER
Tribune Media Services
What if the women who helped make abortion-on-demand the law of the land changed their minds? They did.
And what if no one cared? Apparently, no one does.
Or so one might surmise from the media's inattention to the latest motion filed in federal court seeking to set aside the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 abortion ruling, a reversal of which would return abortion jurisdiction to states.
On Monday, Sandra Cano -- "Mary Doe" in the U.S. Supreme Court Doe vs. Bolton abortion case, which was a companion case to the more-famous Roe vs. Wade -- filed a motion in Georgia to vacate the court's ruling.
Like Norma McCorvey of Roe vs. Wade, Cano says she regrets her role in helping legalize abortion and wants to "right a wrong."
McCorvey filed a similar motion in Texas in June. Her case, which included some 5,400 pages of evidence, was thrown out by the district court within 48 hours, but has been appealed to the 5th Circuit Federal Court. The judge must have been a fast reader.
Despite the enormous importance of Cano's motion, the mainstream media have largely ignored it. A Lexis-Nexis search turned up only one story about the filing, but it was a report by U.S. Newswire, a division of Medialink Worldwide Inc., which is essentially a vehicle for corporate communications.
In the Cano case, the relevant entity is The Justice Foundation, which is representing both Cano and McCorvey.
The nonprofit foundation historically has offered free legal assistance in cases of school choice, limited government, free market and recently in women's health.
The Justice Foundation concedes that "women's health" means "pro-life" issues and is now the exclusive focus of its work. Which, might we infer, explains why the media are ignoring this latest filing?
Let me be blunt: What we have here is a clear and present bias against the pro-life side of the abortion debate.
There are a couple of reasons for this. First, the majority of people in the media are pro-choice. And, giving the devil his due, reporters hate press conferences and press releases. They don't like being beckoned to appear and report on what feel like propaganda events.
Still. When it comes to one of the landmark cases that changed life in ways we're just beginning to understand, we might deign to note what amounts to a shift in the culture's tectonic plates. It is news.
The Justice Foundation's media director, Anne Newman, said Wednesday that she had received only three or four media phone calls and only six hits on the Web site since Cano announced her filing. Although network affiliates sent reporters and cameras to the press conference, which included testimonials by women who regretted their abortions, only one local station reported the event, according to Newman.
Here's what you didn't learn from the media:
The ruling in Cano's case expanded abortion rights beyond Roe's trimester approach based on "health of the mother" considerations. Health has been loosely defined as mental anguish or even financial considerations, thus allowing women to get abortions at any time up to and including "partial-birth."
The gist of Cano's current motion is that, 30 years ago, the Supreme Court didn't consider the physical and emotional effects of abortion on women, primarily because there was no information available at the time. Now, plaintiffs contend, we have 30 years of evidence that abortion harms women (link www.operationoutcry.org )
Both McCorvey and Cano, neither of whom ever had an abortion, claim they were used by lawyers on fraudulent grounds.
Cano says she never even sought an abortion. An impoverished mother of three whose husband was in jail at the time, she went to a legal-aid office for a divorce and wound up an unwitting and unwilling activist. McCorvey was a drug abuser living on the streets, easily manipulated by her ambitious lawyers, she says.
Whatever these women did or didn't do, they surely were used by savvier sorts for the purpose of securing reproductive control for women. Those of us who were around during those heady days of free love and narcissistic thrall were convinced that the Second Coming could bring no greater news.
The fact that many now think otherwise -- based on experience and new evidence provided by advanced technology -- is surely worthy of discussion. And of reporting.
The fact that the mainstream media have decided to ignore Cano's case suggests that the media, at least, have made up their collective mind. Once again, it seems, Cano and McCorvey are irrelevant to the larger social "goal" as determined by an elite few.
Kathleen
Parker |
http://www.operationoutcry.org/stor...le=AmberArk.pdf
Just one....
Social engineering, for those who think my subjects and or post's are not related...think again...Sure I post about one topic, but which topic? A clue for the dense I am totally against media, government sponsored social engineering in any form....
Why? That to me is a stupid question the answer to those who care is obvious.
quote:
social engineering
n.
The practical application of sociological principles to particular social problems. |
For whom are these practical applications for and why? Now who's pricipals? These social problems whom does it effect? and why? Ultimately who gains from these changes?
What are the features, advantages and bennefits?
Now who gains from them? Who ends up with the advantages and bennefits?
Who is harmed most by these social engineering specialist's? A good question is why are they targeting the children of our society?
next...
Last edited by blackice on 16-09-2003 at 10:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
1. Women who seek abortions are just as happy with their situation as normal expectant mothers. They have nothing to be depressed about. Life is just peachy for them.
So life is all peachy for those who are expecting? I thought that pregnancy was a terrible burden, hence the need for abortion. Nowhere does my argument assume that life is all good for either, both groups have their problems. My argument merely states that both groups will be approximately the same. |
No, they are NOT the same. They are not even REMOTELY the same.
Do you honestly believe that women who seek abortions are living under approximately the same circumstances as normal expectant mothers? That they have the same financial and /or relationship issues? That women who seek abortions generally have no reason to do so?
Then you have chosen to bury your head in the sand.
quote:
2. Women who seek and are denied abortions are happy about that. It doesn't bother them at all. They didn't really want one anyway.
No. All I say is that women who carry their child on average, commit suicide far less than the woman who choose to abort. |
That is not ALL you're saying. You are saying that they commit suicide BECAUSE they have abortions, rather than recognizing the obvious: that the abortion and the suicide have a common cause.
quote:
"Here are statistics which show that fighter pilots who eject from their aircraft are significantly more likely to sustain injury or death than those who land normally after an uneventful patrol. Therefore ejection seats are hazardous, and should be removed from all fighter aircraft immediately".
Most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother. The only exception to this is ectopic pregnancy, which occurs around 1% of all pregnancies. The vast majority are performed for reasons of convenience, as Spiffor has aptly demonstrated. Without an ejection seat, the pilot will die in a plane crash. Without an abortion, can we say that all mothers will die?
Most importantly,
Abortion always results in the death of an unborn child. Ejection seats do not kill another person during operation. |
Again, you've missed the point entirely. 
My point is that you are using a fallacious argument.
Forget about abortion for a moment. Let's assume that the topic of this thread is "ejection seats are dangerous". Do you AGREE that because ejection seats are used in situations where planes crash and lives are lost, the ejection seat is RESPONSIBLE for plane crashes and lost lives?
If you do NOT agree: can you see why the argument I gave is FALLACIOUS?
If you CAN see that the argument is fallacious: can you see that your "abortions cause suicide" argument contains the SAME fallacy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Now which is it? The judged ruled on the case or made laws for society? Both? |
Yes both. You see, in our common law system, judges rule based on the facts of the case and make a ruling that becomes law (the common law). This ruling MUST be adhered to by lower court judges. So yes, he is ruling for BOTH the facts of the case and society, and in fact, you cannot seperate them.
I know this may be hard to grasp for someone like yourself, who is not versed in the law, but try to follow, will you?
Roe is an interesting case, because by all indications, she shouldn't have had standing. HOWEVER, the court took up the case because of the legal issue in general. Other women would have to deal with the same problems, but because of the slowness of legal system, they'd never reach the SCOTUS before the baby was born, so in the end, there were ruling for society. It didn't impact her worth a damn.
Yes, I know, history isn't your strong suit either.
quote:
If not then the judge is ruling cases based on thier opinion of social engineering not the case before them...
That would be wrong would it not? |
Why, because you disagree with the ruling on the case? I wonder how a unlegal mind such as yourself can see a situation where a judge can seperate the 'case before then' from societial rules. Seeing that that cool thing called 'law' is a societal rule, and the judge is also making law.
So what you call 'social engineering' is called by most laypeople as law.
Hope that was simple enough for you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Darius871
|
 |
Smith, Wesson, and the RODINA!!!
Mar 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Again, since a zygote is no different from any of your body cells, so, by your logic, it is at least immoral to hurt yourself, or getting yourself hurt. |
As he said, a zygote has everything necessary to develop into an independent being. If you hurt yourself you're killing cells that are only a part of you and can't survive independently. The distinction should be pretty obvious.
Last edited by Darius871 on 17-09-2003 at 09:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Ben:
quote:
Do you honestly believe that women who seek abortions are living under approximately the same circumstances as normal expectant mothers?
...That they have the same financial and /or relationship issues?
Over the entire sample, the differences would not account for the differences we see in the suicide rate. |
Baseless (and ludicrous) assertion.
Women who CHOOSE to have kids are MORE secure than the average woman. This is not a decision entered into lightly. Most women choose to become mothers when they are in a stable relationship and have the means to raise the child.
Whereas women who seek abortions are usually desperately unhappy. They include women who have been abandoned, women who are too poor to cope with kids, and rape victims (not a lot of those, but not many commit suicide either: it doesn't take many pregnant and suicidal rape victims to drive up the overall suicide rate).
quote:
...Because I suspect that the activities of "pro-lifers" are largely responsible for the suicide rate in the US. Far too many desperate, upset, vulnerable women go to clinics where a hysterical mob screams "Whore! Murderer! Scum!" at them.
Clever, however you are only 40 years too late.
From Dr. King's Letter to a Birmingham Jail... |
...In which you don't refute this theory.
quote:
Secondly, show me a prolife demonstration where the prolifers are the ones 'screaming and shouting at the women on the street, calling them murderers, etc.' |
You're denying that this happens?
I could introduce you to people who act as volunteer "escorts", helping to get women in and out of abortion clinics through the baying mobs that wait outside them. One of those volunteers was shot dead by a "pro-lifer".
quote:
If you CAN see that the argument is fallacious: can you see that your "abortions cause suicide" argument contains the SAME fallacy?
I note you do not address a single one of my objections to the false analogy. Yes your example is false, but no, it cannot serve as a proper analogy to my argument about abortion.
I suggest that you rebut the points already made as to false analogy:
1. Abortions are only rarely done to save the life of the mother.
2. Abortions always result in the death of an unborn child. |
Neither of which is remotely relevant to the issue here: your bizarre and fallacious argument that abortions cause suicide.
Furthermore, you seem to be "in denial" about the consequences of the policy you seek to impose on women, which will increase the suicide rate. You can't make suicidally depressed women happier by denying them what they desperately want, or by turning them into criminals!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
Ahem. Prozac has been proven to treat depression and thereby relieve suicidal urges. Abortion has not. If you want women to stop killing themselves, and you think the availability of efficient baby-killing methods is key to that goal, I think you're looking in the wrong place.
And UR, if you kill off a body cell, do you cease to exist as an independent organism? Is that body cell gone forever, or will another body cell likely grow in to take its place? Most importantly, have you ever had a cell in, say, your arm grow into a baby for some reason? Really, the difference should be obvious, like Darius and Ben said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
yes. we want to get rid of as many humans as possible. i say mandatory sterlization of all people, and random detonations of nuclear devices, preferably with a low-yield high-radiation payload, in densely populated regions of the world
===
i say abortion's murder, plain and simple. to terminate the life of another human being is rather heinous, and thus i cannot condone it.
seeing, however, as i'll never have a parasite like that feeding off of my body and obviously enjoying it, i do not believe i have the right to legislate whether or not abortion should be legal or not.
the decision lies with the woman, who is clearly the victim of this dangerous infection.
the father should definitely have some say, but since it's not him suffering from the symptoms, it is the woman who should have the final say in her treatment course: wait it out, or to use antibiotics and surgery. she does, however, need to make the decision almost immediately. if she waits until the infection lasts longer than 3 months, she should consult a doctor who specializes in these cases, because the chemical/surgical treatment should no longer be an option.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-09-2003 01:26
NO! Did you even read what I wrote 
And your resonse to this has sent the Disney world stocks soaring.
|