U.S. Supreme Court says "no" to reopening Roe vs. Wade

[Louisianagrl]

Ladies, our right to choose has been saved...for now...

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a bid to reopen the Roe v. Wade case that led to the legalization of abortion. The case was filed by Norma McCorvey, known as plaintiff "Jane Roe" in the historic case. She has filed appeals saying that the 1973 decision should be overturned because, quote, "factual conditions surrounding abortion have changed significantly demonstrating that abortion hurts women.'' However, the high court apparently agreed with lower courts that said the case is now moot.

[postfeminist]

woo!!!!!!!! yeah! safe for a little while longer....

[rocketman70]

Wow, that is good news.

[rudegirl]

good news indeed! i've been volunteering at a planned parenthood clinic in dc. it's good to know our efforts have not completely been for naught.

[classicgrrl]

I had been watching with extreme interest. McCorvey is a born again I believe. And probably more mentally unstable than I am. Not the kind of person who needs to be deciding what hurts women.

I am quite pleased with the courts decision. My morality and body do not need legislating thank you very much.

[frenchstudent]

My morality and body do not need legislating thank you very much.

well said classicgrrl!

[whocares]

"My morality and body do not need legislating thank you very much." -classicgrrl That is a completely loaded philosophical statement classicgrrl. By this statement you are implying that there should be no laws, as laws are based on moral and cultural norms. Surely you think some law is valid, but by this statement one would surmize that you along with frenchstudent are against any law at all. Now please do not get me wrong I am not attacking the issue of abortion I am attacking your ignorance in any logical thought progression. I think we can see that there are some valid laws, surely.

[classicgrrl]

"My morality and body do not need legislating thank you very much." -classicgrrl That is a completely loaded philosophical statement classicgrrl. By this statement you are implying that there should be no laws, as laws are based on moral and cultural norms. Surely you think some law is valid, but by this statement one would surmize that you along with frenchstudent are against any law at all. Now please do not get me wrong I am not attacking the issue of abortion I am attacking your ignorance in any logical thought progression. I think we can see that there are some valid laws, surely.

I'll bite.

theoretically, no I don't think any laws are valid. I do, however, think that some "laws" are universal. I do not believe in universal truths.

Humans are imperfect, so while all laws are invalid, we are incapable of living together without organization. Therefore, invalid laws are necessary.

[whocares]

I'll bite.

theoretically, no I don't think any laws are valid. I do, however, think that some "laws" are universal. I do not believe in universal truths.

Humans are imperfect, so while all laws are invalid, we are incapable of living together without organization. Therefore, invalid laws are necessary.

So wait now you have changed your mind. Now you say that laws are nessesary or that, to address what you said earlier, that you morality does need to be legislated, in order to hold some form of society. But, you brought in a whole new idea. The idea of "invalid law." Now this is a oxymoron as invalid means "Not legally or factually valid; null see:invalid (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=invalid) " The idea of "invalid law" is completely incoherent. Law does hold validaty, based on the pure fact that it is neccecary to hold society together as you said earlier. Surely you can difine what you mean better than this for us.

[ms. chevious]

well, what i think WC is missing is history. when CG and FS claim that, as women, their bodies don't need legislating, they do so in the context of a society where women's bodies have been the subject of EXCESSIVE legislation (moreso than most men's bodies, particluarly white, middle-class, straight men's bodies)...legislation written, notably, not by women, and not for the advantage of women - hell, not even fair to women. so, when "legislation" marginalizes you systematically and a priori, you generally like to keep it off yr body, so to speak.

[classicgrrl]

So wait now you have changed your mind. Now you say that laws are nessesary or that, to address what you said earlier, that you morality does need to be legislated, in order to hold some form of society. But, you brought in a whole new idea. The idea of "invalid law." Now this is a oxymoron as invalid means "Not legally or factually valid; null see:invalid (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=invalid) " The idea of "invalid law" is completely incoherent. Law does hold validaty, based on the pure fact that it is neccecary to hold society together as you said earlier. Surely you can difine what you mean better than this for us.

my original statement was MY morality and MY body does need legislating. law may be necessary to hold society together but not individuals.

don't get the indivdual and the group mixed. one is seperate than the other. for the individual, laws are unnecessary. perhaps not for society.

as far as in invalid law is concerned. Invalid has many different definitions:
1. being without force or foundation in fact, truth, or law
2. logically inconsequent

or invalidate: to destroy or weaken the cogency of (nullify).

I think one can have a logically inconseqent law. and certainly one can destroy or weaken the cogency of a law or nullify it.

[beezlebob]

this must be some kind of trick

[whocares]

my original statement was MY morality and MY body does need legislating. law may be necessary to hold society together but not individuals.

don't get the indivdual and the group mixed. one is seperate than the other. for the individual, laws are unnecessary. perhaps not for society.

as far as in invalid law is concerned. Invalid has many different definitions:
1. being without force or foundation in fact, truth, or law
2. logically inconsequent

or invalidate: to destroy or weaken the cogency of (nullify).

I think one can have a logically inconseqent law. and certainly one can destroy or weaken the cogency of a law or nullify it.


Wait it would seem that it is not quite that easy to make the distinction between society and individuals. Laws generally start on an individual basis and that is what people are prosecuted under. Groups are rarely prosecuted, it is generally the individual that is and it is because of this that our society is held together. We deal with cases on an individual basis and do not group people together. Maybe I am missing what you are saying again, but it seems that law starts with the individual and by starting here, the society is held together.

[classicgrrl]

Wait it would seem that it is not quite that easy to make the distinction between society and individuals. Laws generally start on an individual basis and that is what people are prosecuted under. Groups are rarely prosecuted, it is generally the individual that is and it is because of this that our society is held together. We deal with cases on an individual basis and do not group people together. Maybe I am missing what you are saying again, but it seems that law starts with the individual and by starting here, the society is held together.

laws are made by the goup and imposed on the individual. and people are prosecuted as a group - albeit one person at at time. Look at our prison population makeup for that example.

now, it is difficult to make a distinction between society and individual as individuals do make up societies. however, once put together group dynamic and group think come into play and give the "group" a life of its own. that is where I am coming from.

and yes, chevious makes a very good point in that my statement was made within a certain context.

btw, good post chevious.

and now you guys will have to excuse me I have go theroetic groceries so I can do my hypothetical laundry!

[postfeminist]

wow...newbs are coming out swinging these days...

[classicgrrl]

wow...newbs are coming out swinging these days...


not so sure he/she is a newb...

[whocares]

I assumed that your statement was coming from an original context. That is one thing post-modernism has taught us, that there is no objective truth only truth that is subjective and based on an individual's context in which their worldview arises out of. As for why I made the initial point it was for the reason that I see so many people that are no more than the summation of their culture and do not think out their beliefs and convictions. But hey according to post-modernism our beliefs are null as they really hold no meaning for others as those others have their own worldview. Most people simply accept the worldview of a particular camp in order to have some sense of belonging and because that is what they are most comfortable with. Very few people think, they just accept what is shoved down there throats. But, hey what does that really matter if there is no objective truth, it does not matter what is true, so does it matter what people make one do by law? After all if all truth is subjective than there is no point in fighting for what you believe in because what you believe in has no point for anyone else. I do not have the answers I am just trying to ask the right questions and get other people involved.

[tobedawg]

It's good to hear that The Supreme Court still has sense left within them, BUT I caution how much longer it will be before the American Taliban starts getting desperate and blowing up abortion clinics again?

[Louisianagrl]

It's good to hear that The Supreme Court still has sense left within them, BUT I caution how much longer it will be before the American Taliban starts getting desperate and blowing up abortion clinics again?

About as long as it will take for some conservative Christian lawmakers to suggest outlawing divorce. Why did the colonists come to this country again?!? ;)

[postfeminist]

outlawing divorce... now that's a scary thought...:D

[classicgrrl]

outlawing divorce... now that's a scary thought...:D

fankly I hope they do it. Then folks will start to get truthfully pissed and they will be discredited and perhaps, just perhaps, the money they throw at the politicians won't mean as much.

But that's just me daydreaming.

Hey whocares - I try to think for myself. And I am very often in the minority on much of my opinions and thinking processes. Just as these folks.
;)

[supra-genius]

About as long as it will take for some conservative Christian lawmakers to suggest outlawing divorce. Why did the colonists come to this country again?!? ;)

They came here because they were too uptight to stay in England (that pesky anglican church and its darn acceptance of divorce) and they wanted a land where they could live in fear of god (they werent refered to as "Puritans" for nothing)

[dragonflier]

Europe is nowhere near as uptight as the U.S. Why? Because starting 400 years ago, they sent all the conservative nuts and religious wackos here.

Not that Europe is wacko-free. They just significantly reduced their numbers by exporting them here. And people say that the trade deficit is meaningless....

[indifilm]

frankly I hope they do it. Then folks will start to get truthfully pissed and they will be discredited
YEA!
And I hope that evil bastard Bush starts cutting up baby Mexicans! Cause when he does, and we all know he wants to, then maybe the country will wake up and vote those white devils out!
:confused:

[Orville Wrong]

Europe is nowhere near as uptight as the U.S. Why? Because starting 400 years ago, they sent all the conservative nuts and religious wackos here.

Not that Europe is wacko-free. They just significantly reduced their numbers by exporting them here. And people say that the trade deficit is meaningless....
Europe replaced us with Turks, Algerians, Tunisians and Egyptians. None of them seem too cool with Europes lack of "uptightness." Fancy that. Hope that works out for the rest of them better than it did for Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh.

[markalot]

I'll bite.

theoretically, no I don't think any laws are valid. I do, however, think that some "laws" are universal. I do not believe in universal truths.

Humans are imperfect, so while all laws are invalid, we are incapable of living together without organization. Therefore, invalid laws are necessary.

Well said CG.

Looks like you have a stalker :( Where the hell are all these cowardly newbies coming from?

edit: woah, old post drug up. :/