Scott versus Scott

Welcome to our blog. Here we will debate the days most serious topics and allow users the chance to discuss the topics as well. The range of topics will vary, but one thing will remain certain, the debate will rage on. Scott Lesinski is a proud conservative and Scott Jones is a proud liberal. However, the roles will switch on some topics. Stay tuned.

Scott Lesinski is currently an actuarial associate for a large human resources and insurance consulting firm in Saint Louis. He is also an avid student of US history and enjoys following current events, with an eye to their contextual relationship to the past. He is also, in fact, a former student of Mr. Scott Jones. Scott is working toward his FSA credentials, which is akin to earning a PHD in Actuarial Science.

Scott Jones is currently a high school social studies teacher at a high school in suburban St. Louis, MO. He teaches World History, AP American Government and Senior American Foreign Policy. He has a BS. Ed. (Secondary Social Studies) from the University of Missouri - Columbia and a M.A. (History) from Southeast Missouri State University. He is currently working on a dissertation in character education to earn a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Monday, August 10, 2009

On the Right to Privacy and Abortion

Scott L posted a short entry on how liberals can possibly argue against guns because of the clarity of the Constitution. Here is my take on abortion...

Scott L posted a comment that he believes medical decisions should be kept private because of an inherent right to privacy, which is a cornerstone right of a limited government system. However, he then in the next sentence argued that this right, in the medical arena, applies only to men. Apparently, according to his argument, women do not have this right.

The problem lies in the argument itself. Without an examination of a woman's medical records we can never know if she was pregnant, miscarried, aborted or was retaining huge amounts of water and was prescribed a water pill. Unfortunately, this examination of the medical records is exactly the sort of government intrusion into private affairs that conservatives rant against, at least as it pertains to a man's medical records. Even if you want to make it illegal for doctors to perform the procedure, it would require a subpeona of the names of women who have had the procedure, which would again be a violation of the privacy of medical records for the women subject to the investigation.

The further problem lies with the Constitution itself. Equal protection of the law, due process of the law and other Constitutional rights are part of a document that begins "We the People..." Unfortunately, an unborn fetus does not fall into the category of people. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment's first clause cleary defines citizenship as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

To me this is a perfectly clear argument. While I don't believe in taxpayer funded abortions (at least at the current levels of public opinion), it is impossible to outlaw abortion without fundamentally altering the right to privacy. Any system that doesn't guarantee a woman "equal protection" under the laws of the United States is a system I cannot support.

Basically, I believe that any outlawing of abortion (and I mean at all stages) is unenforcable because of the inherent right to privacy that I believe all CITIZENS of the United States should have in our Constitutional Government.


  1. WE the people, for the people of the people. yes we are supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but only if you are a man. I think not. Women have an innate property that a man will never have: The ability to give birth!" So who are we to say what she can and cannot do to her body, when a man is free to do as he pleases with his. Everyone has the right under the constitution to do what we wish without interfering with the government.

    Then the issue of abortion comes into play. Yes you mentioned the privacy that everyone is guaranteed due to the inactment of HIPPA. Thus, if the government were to regulate healthcare in america, we would still hold people accountable for privacy under HIPPA. Now who has the right to have an abortion is purely up to the woman who is contemplating the fact. I believe that every woman should have the right to abort a child if they deem it necessary for whatever reason. The fact of the matter is if she consults with her doctor about it, that information is then only prevy to him and her and any other medical personnel. Noone else should know about the situation but those involved.

  2. I am a female and I am against abortion in respect to abuse. What I mean is that if a female is raped and becomes pregnant then I feel she should have the right to consider an abortion,but in today's world as we see it women have abused the right to abort. Women are aborting simply because they can. We as women need to start taking responsibility for our own actions and bodies. I personally know of several women that have had abortions simply because they were in the "heat of the moment" and didn't use protection. What does this say about us? About our society? Just because we are able and capable to do something doesn't mean you should abuse it. The morning after pill is another issue for me that I think is ridiculous. You should only be able to get it if you have been assaulted. To perform an abortion or give the morning after pill merely because someone has been irresponsible doesn't say much for what we are teaching our children. Have we no morals left? I understand that there are some cases were women have used protection and still becamse pregnant such as after a tubal ligation or during the use of birth control pills. I say that if that is the case and you get pregnant then yes you should be able to abort if that is what you want. So I feel that the government needs to be involved to a certain extent. I know a young lady who had three abortions three consecutive years and thought nothing of it. Not only is abortion highly controversial, it is wrong when it is for the wrong reasons and it is also very hard on a female's body physically and mentally. In today's world we as people have taken this " free will" and gone to far with it..

  3. have to admit, I took a few minutes to go and calm down after reading this.

    Let me ask you something. You make a fairly compelling constitutional argument for abortion, but in all honesty, how can you support the slaughter of a perfectly viable, fully developed infant on its way out of the womb as is the case in partial birth abortion? I argue that a baby counts as "born" in this case, so at the very least, the US government should outlaw this hideous, heinous act of murder.

    Abortion, and its legality, regulation, control, etc, should be a state issue. There are many things not explicitly stated in the Constitution, and the issue of Abortion is one of these things.

    Scott, our founders based much of their thought and writings on Natural Law (God's Law). Abortion is a perversion of Natural Law. In just the same way as we as a society have outlawed cruelty to animals - even though they count as our property and ought to fall under the right to privacy - we ought to outlaw the systematic murder of the most innocent among us.

    Speaking of being against natural law (that is, it should be so freaking obvious that we don't have to write it down), aborting children goes against the nature of intercourse. This is another argument against gay marriage, that is that marriage is intended to promote the procreation of the species and just as it is impossible for two men or women to procreate, so too is it totally wrong for women to kill their inconvenient unborn children.

    Personally, as I have stated before, I only can support abortion in the event that the life of the mother is at stake. Otherwise, including rape AND incest, I believe that the baby has done nothing wrong and deserves their right to life. I know that most people would make exceptions in those instances as well, but I argue that there is always adoption for the baby.

    As a side note, you say you are against federally funding abortions, yet this healthcare bill provides for federally funding abortions.

    You claim that my wanting to ban abortions is an intrusion into a woman's right to private decision making regarding her healthcare. I say abortion is rarely about healthcare. I make an exception when it becomes about the safety of the mother, but abortion on demand to be used as birth control when women are lax about using protection is no longer about healthcare. At that point, in this one very narrowly defined way, I feel that we as a society have a right to say no. Have we no morality left? Have we no personal responsiblity? What has become of us, if we are reduced to arguing that women have the right to kill the very innocent, very much human life inside of her, just because she was irresponsible?

    I am not saying that the man who impregnated her is not responsible. I feel he is just as much. Men who knock up women and run are scumbags. We ought to hold their feet to the fire as well, if at least through the adoption process. But this is just one of those areas where the sexes are not the same. Men cannot give birth, so men cannot have abortions. If men could, then I'd be arguing against them having abortions as well.

  4. I don't think anybody particularly likes abortions, Scott L., but isn't it silly (and as Scott J. pointed out, practically impossible) to impose your morality on all pregnant women with regard to something inside of THEIR bodies?

    And don't invoke "God's Law;" what is "natural" and "unnatural" is not as easy to discern as you might like it to be. Take homosexuality, for example. Although two men may not be capable of reproduction, their feelings for one another are natural enough, and are indeed naturally occurring.

    And don't tell me that you think marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples for reproductive reasons; should women who are naturally infertile be barred from marriage, using this reasoning?

    I didn't want to drag the marriage debate into this thread, but you asked for it Scott L. ;)

  5. I agree completely with Scott L. that aborting a child merely because a mother is too irresponsible to wear protection or be on birth control is wrong.

    BUT, in certain situations, I would rather see a child never be born than to be born into a bad environment. Some of these children that are born are homeless and end up living on the streets because their homeless low life mother got pregnant. I think it’s better to have never lived than to starve to death and never have a “life”.

    I disagree completely with sending newborns to an orphanage, they are so many children in orphanages that never get adopted, and these places are filling up. Our country cannot afford to raise everyone else’s children because they are too irresponsible to do it themselves!

  6. emr and Goofie - you say you are opposed to abortion, but then say it is okay if the contraception fails or the child will be born into a bad situation. I fail to understand how this argument doesn't completely support abortion.

    Scott L - you argue that Sotomayor shouldn't be a justice because she would let her emotions get in the way of Constitutional interpretations...yet you do the exact same thing here. Nice emotional argument, but it doesn't solve the fact the Constitution (both strict and loose interpretations) seems to protect a Constitutional right to privacy, and, therefore, the right of a woman's medical records to be kept private, which then makes anti-abortion laws unenforcable.

  7. By the way, of the 2,000,000 abortions performed last year performed in 2001, only 1865 were partial-birth abortions. 95% of those partial-birth abortions could've been done with another procedure, but the doctor and the patient decided to go with the partial-birth abortion because it was a cheaper alternative. The remaining 5% were done because of health issues with the fetus or the mother.

    Once we remove Scott L's emotion from his argument, the partial-birth abortion procedure argument against abortion becomes a bit of a red herring.

  8. BTW, the first sentence should not include last year. The numbers are from 2001.

    The information comes from either or one of the over 300 links that you can click on from the site. These links cover sites that are on both sides of the abortion debate.

  9. First off I do believe abortion is something only the woman has the choice on. It is our body and you should be able to do what you want.

    I agree with STL_MAR 100% about no one else should be able to know about the situation. It is no one’s business.

    For GOOFIE how can you say you do not believe in the morning after pill? That is better than having an abortion. It is still an egg and a sperm when that woman takes the morning after pill. That is not killing a baby!

    No I do not believe that people should be using abortion as a form of birth control but I also believe it is none of my business what they do.

    For people that believe that these women should just have the babies and then put them up for adoption. Do you ever listen to the statistics of children that are in our government horrible child care services? If you haven’t well they usually do not get adopted and are kicked out to live on the streets once they turn 18. Most Americans DO NOT adopt American children....they go to China and other foreign countries.

    SCOTT L... for your comment about “how could you support the slaughter of a perfectly viable, fully developed infant on its way out of the womb” do I need to remind you...ITS NOT A BABY YET that “child”.. Is not fully developed, go take a human growth and development class.

    Our founders bases on natural law being gods law... well GOD should be nowhere in our government.
    My “god” and your “god” probably believe in different things…

  10. I am still two sided with this topic and probably will always be. I do not believe women should use abortion as a form of birth control. Many women have abused the right to have an abortion. Having three or four abortions in consecutive years is unacceptable. I understand getting an abortion the first time you get pregnant but not the third or fourth. Yeah we all get caught up in the moment sometimes and opps it happens but come on get some condoms or birth control or something. Ignorance is not an excuse for pregnancy. If you had sex unprotected, get the morning after pill before anything starts growing inside of you.

    I do believe abortion should be used understand certain circumstances though. The ever conversional issue of rape is when I believe abortion is acceptable. If a woman gets raped she should not have to live with the product. A rape is always going to leave a scar on a woman’s heart, a child should not. Just imagine what that child’s life might be like when the mother doesn’t want the child because it was the product of a rape. Abortion is around when a woman is in trouble and should not be used for a form of birth control.

  11. I am completely against abortion, except when it comes to a rape victim. If a female is raped and then becomes pregnant, I would not force her to have the child. On the other hand, I do not think it is okay to have an abortion simply because you had sexual intercourse and did not use protection. Even if you used protection and still got pregnant, it is not okay to have an abortion! Every individual makes the choice to involve themselves in risky behavior. If someone has the choice to do that, they need to be responsible and face the consequences. Now, if a young female was to get pregnant and knows that she is incapable of taking care of the baby, I feel the right thing to do is adoption. There are so many couples in the world that are unable to conceive a child; these people are praying for a child. Instead of terminating an innocent life, one could give a whole new life to someone else. I wish young girls in today's society would realize the consequences before getting pregnant and before getting involved with sexual intercourse.

  12. Thankfully, the law protects a woman’s right to decide what is right for her own body, whether or not others agree with her decision. Simply put, it is their choice to make, and when they make it, they will also be forced to live with the consequences of whichever decision. I think more attention should be put towards increasing social support and education rather than condemning the decision of a woman who has undoubtedly made one of the most difficult decisions of her life. The bottom line is that no one, but the mother, has the right to make such a decision about her body and her life. This assumes of course that the mother is not abusing this right just for birth control or for other selfish reasons. I am all for preventing abortive procedures by way of abstinence, safe sex, adoption, education but I don’t think we are in any position to judge or condemn another for a choice that they made for themselves and their life.

  13. This is one area of politics that I do not understand my fellow conservatives at all. I personally don't have a problem if a woman has 50 abortions! Why?? BECAUSE IF THE CHILD IS NEVER BORN, ITS AS IF IT WERE NEVER CONCEIVED TO BEGIN WITH. The only argumergument that can possibly support outlawing abortion is a religious one, and that and that type of argument should have no effect on policy.


    So you're telling me that if a woman carries a baby for 40 weeks, and the only event that remains is for that baby to come out of the womb, it still is not a person?

    The question of abortion's legality ought to remain a state issue. It is not addressed in the constitution, therefore, let the states decide what they want to do.

    Jones, you mean to tell me that you really think the Constitution sets as legal partial birth abortion? So the baby is halfway out, still okay to kill them? What about two thirds, can we round up and call it a whole citizen?

    How about infants who survive abortions, but doctors just throw them out anyways since the intent was to kill them? You know, like Obama voted in favor of allowing three times while in the State Senate of Illinois? Is that a prosecutable offence?

    And speaking of citizenship, I expect that all you libs will join me in my condemnation of this healthcare bill, from which you have so craftily diverted attention, which provides taxpayer funded health insurance for illegal immigrants.

    I also expect you'll join me in my call to build a fence along the border, kick illegals out of our schools and off of our welfare roles and ship them back to their countries of origin. I like the idea of enforcing citizenship, but you can't have it both ways. If you get to kill all the babies you want, then I get to demand we start enforcing our immigration laws and coming down hard on employers who hire illegals and on illegals themselves. They aren't citizens, so what does it matter how hard they are trying to live their life? At least they had a chance to be born!

  15. I completely agree wih goofie's comment on this matter of abortion. I too am a female and I am against abortion in respect to abuse. I think if a women becomes pregnant after being raped she should have the right to end her pregnancy with having an abortion. After all she didnt ask to be raped, and why should she have to carry that nightmare around everyday for 40 weeks. Is that fair to the mother? Then you have to ask yourself the question, is it fair for that child that was conceived out of rape to be brought into this world and later find out that he or she was a product of a rape and that they have no real biological parents that want anything to do with them. I also agree that women have abused the day after pill, just because they get into the moment and forget to wear protection is no excuse. If your old enough to have sex, then your old enough to take responsibility for your actions. I feel that if you are raped then you should have access to the morning after pill without any ?'s. I also feel that if you are pregnant and find out that your child is severly malformed or will be severly handicapped then you should have the right to an abortion as well, early in the pregnancy though. I also feel that if women become pregnant even though they have used protection or have had a procedure done such as a tubal ligation and still become pregnant, they should be able to have an abortion as well. After all they had tried to prevent the pregnancy by being responsible.

  16. The question, emr, is not whether you think it's "wrong" for an irresponsible woman to get an abortion to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy. The question is whether society should impose restrictions on what a woman can or cannot do in this regard using governmental law.

    This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but when it comes to their guns or the economy conservatives can't stand government regulation; when it comes to fetuses they want all the regulation imaginable. Don't you dare touch my guns or my money, but for God's sake make sure that woman maintains her pregnancy to full live birth!

  17. Wow...I should refresh this page more often. :P

  18. Scott L - now that's the spirit of compromise. I have no problem not allowing illegal immigrants tax-payer funded health care (that is one of the FEW problems I have with the bills as it currently stands). I have no problem with enforcing the immigrations laws of the nation so that the immigrants that are here legally don't have to worry about being unfair targets.

    However, why do I get the feeling Scott that this won't be enough for you to join me on the Constitutional debate on abortion.

    By the way, I love the comments from everyone, but there are too many personal opinions on a post that was about the CONSTITUTIONALITY of abortion. Personal opinion does not matter when it comes to the Constitution. I have seen too few posts dealing with government regulation and the Constitution. Support your opinions legally, philosophically or statistically.

    One a last note: Many of you are posting that you oppose abortion except in the case of rape. I'm confused. The murder of a baby (as conservatives call it) is a murder of a baby no matter what the other circumstances might be in the case.

    If you support abortion in the cases of incest and rape, you support abortion.

    According to this reasoning, all a woman has to do is say she was raped and she can still get an abortion. You don't have time to wait for a trial or a conviction, because by that time, the baby will have been born.

    Again, we have a right to privacy issue here. If a woman is raped, she might want to keep it private and not report it. If she is forced to have to come forward in order to end a pregnacy, we are again forcing women, not men, to have a lower expectation of privacy, which I would think is very important when it comes to rape victims. Why else would media outlets agree not to publish the names of rape victims in stories about rape.

  19. It is defintitely going to be impossible to outlaw abortion. It is definitely going to always go into opinion regardless of what the Constitution says, if that was the case abortions would have been either illegal or legal. There is nothing clear cut in the Constitution about abortion. Women should be entitled to make this decision at their on will. Since we have a right to privacy, who are we to say that this person or that person is abusing abortions. We may not agree with it but as it stands, it is her decision to be made. It is her body, if she wants to destroy it or doesn't feel like she has the resources to bring a child into the world, or was raped, who is anybody to say she is wrong in doing so. The woman chose to not make the issue private by telling whoever it may have been that she has had this or that number of abortions.

  20. "that is one of the FEW problems I have with the bills as it currently stands"

    For only having a few problems with it you sure have been pretty quiet on that front on Scott L's post. I mean that was quite a list of just what was in the first half of the bill.

    And while I could get behind the compromise as far as abortion and illegal immigration are concerned, I just thought of something.

    Since you all are saying the baby isn't a citizen because it hasn't been born yet and that makes it ok to abort it, shouldn't it be ok by the same logic to just go out a kill an illegal immigrant? Human life just the same but not a citizen.

  21. Ward- while not dancing around the question, I can't help but notice the same logic used by conservatives when it comes to the use of torture.

    A baby is not only missing the citizenship aspect, it is also missing person status as well. A baby, while entirely human, is not a person (or people) until birth. The illegal immigrant is a person and therefore endowed by the creator with the right of life...(The Declaration of Independence clearly refers to people/persons and nothing else).

    This debate is actually getting closer to what I consider the real debate over abortion. If we refer to people, then it is only those who have becomes a person, which is upon birth. If we refer to life, then the fetus does have human life similarities and the debate becomes more muddied.

    The question the becomes, when does a fetus become a person. For me, it is at birth. After all, that is when we begin all the official counting (i.e. birthdate, driving age, census, etc).

  22. "while not dancing around the question, I can't help but notice the same logic used by conservatives when it comes to the use of torture."

    What, that since they're not a citizen we should be allowed to torture them? That's not why I believe we have the right to use torture. If we needed to get information from a citizen and torture was the way to do it, then so be it. I don't want to get in to it all again, but, we have to do what keeps our nation safe.

    "when does a fetus become a person."

    I'd say a pretty good measure for that is, well, when it looks like a person and can feel pain.

  23. What constitutes a person?

    Why is being born the ultimate say so in whether you are a person or not?

    If your heart is beating, your organs are functioning, you're able to sustain life on your own, you can feel pain, you can hear sounds, you have thought processes, you have emotions, then how are you not a "person"?

    For those who don't know, babies are capable of surviving outside the womb at around 23-24 weeks. Why is it that medical personnell go through heroic efforts to say some of these babies who are born early and deeply desired, while it is considered perfectly acceptable by some to abort a baby of the same gestation and let it die or physically kill it simply because the mother doesn't want it.

    We talk a lot about a women's rights in these circumstances, that she has the right to privacy and the right to make decisions regarding her body. So in essence, what is implied by those who believe that a woman should be able to abort a not yet person fetus is that in actuality the measure of a person is whether or not its mother wants it.

    In most cases, the baby dies as it is being aborted, in the actual procedural process, which in essence is its birth. Other babies who die during birth, but are wanted, are considered a person.

    Where do we draw the line? The baby's heartbeat begins around 5-6 weeks. Is that not how we usually interpret life outside the womb? If you're heart is beating, you're alive. I realize the baby is dependent on its mother for survival until it is born and guess what, the baby is still dependent on its mother after it is born! I fail to see how simply being born makes you a person.

    We save some babies because we want them and discard others when we don't want them. Since when did we become the judge on which life is valuable and which life isn't? The right to life is very basic and one of the only "rights" I believe is actually a right. A valid function of our Government is protecting that right, even more so for those who can't protect that right for themselves.

    Perhaps one of the reasons the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion is that they weren't faced with the same dilemmas as we are today. Maybe it didn't even enter their consciousness. I don't know, I'm just throwing that out there. Perhaps, it's the decline in our moral values in which leads us to this issue today.

    I know in these debates, we like to base everything on the Constitution, and I do believe the Constitution should be adhered to as it is the foundation of our country. However, simply because the Constitution left it out doesn't automatically mean abortion is acceptable. Where is our moral and rational responsibility? Abortion to me defies common sense.

    Here's a link to how abortions are performed. It's just eHow, no debate, just the technical procedure so everyone can understand exactly what abortion actually is. If this doesn't make you feel sick to your stomach, then I have no idea what to say to you.

    Although privacy has to do with abortion, I believe privacy needs its own debate.

  24. This is a very heated topic to say the least. I believe if we start saying who can and cannot do as they wish with their own bodies we open up an arena of other issues. Why should anyone else be able to say what a woman can or should do with her body. I don't think that abortion should be used as birth control, but I do believe some young women make mistakes and are not able to take care of a child. So we should just make them right? Babies having babies is not the answer either nor is filling up orphanages or foster homes. These government institiutions where the unwanted born go are no better than death. Children get abused and raped and many other horrible things.

    I simply believe it should always be the persons right to decide what medical treatment they want or do not want. If you take that away from any one person then you are trampling on the constitiution.

  25. "If your heart is beating, your organs are functioning, then how are you not a "person"?"

    Katie is a genius (edited of course). Because, accepting this premis as an "acceptable" definition of a living person, this concludes then that babies/fetuses/5 week old fetuses with the bare essentials... are living people.

    If we declare that this is not an acceptable definition and that one must be able to care for him/her/itself, then we have to appreciate just how many people there are in the world that can't make decisions, can't protect or care for themselves at all. I'm talking about of course, young children, mentally retarded, and also the elderly. They are very much alive, but in some cases, share very much in common with a 12 week old fetus in that they are simply existing.

    And to everyone who keeps saying that the baby is the women's property and if she wants to abort it, that's her right...

    It's as much the man's right as her's since the baby is 50% his.

    If I remember my statistics right, I believe 100 babies are aborted every hour. Feel free to correct that number if someone knows the actual number.

  26. The argument on abortion is about what constitutes a person, right? This is a very complex issue, even if you take it from a medical perspective... Does a patent (functional) respiratory system make you an independent being (and therefore a person) or heartbeat, as mentioned in aprevious post? or some stage of frontal cortex development? Each of these would come up with an approximately different age in utero.

    But I think the big thing to remember is that no one really likes abortions, even if they have had one. I hear lots of arguments against people overusing abortions as a form of birth control, but seriously...
    (1) the procedure is very painful, and have some risks for complications
    (2) As a fairly invasive procedure, it is much more expensive than most other forms of birth control (barring total hysterectomy and other surgical interventions)
    (3) The emotional toll of aborting is huge for most women, both at the time of the procedure and for years afterwards.

    If you go to any community clinic and listen to the conversations, you would know that abortion is not something most women take lightly. Are there women who have real psychosocial problems who have had multiple abortions? Of course. But these women are not the norm; they actually need help from professionals and family members, if they have them. I think this is a badly thought-out slippery slope argument that certain hyperactive conservatives have spread all over the place to get people worked up.

  27. It's been a while since I posted on here, and that's probably a good thing considering I'm supposed to be studying for the CPA exam. Anyway, I'll make my comment quick:
    Scott L, why does it even matter what Obama or Barney Frank truly wants? You say they have "admitted" (you make it sound like they're guilty) of wanting a single payer system. So what?!
    That's not what they're trying to achieve, because they know there's no way in hell they're going to get it!
    Scott, I'm sure you would LOVE it if there were no government regulation in the "free market", and if we all went to private school and could buy as many guns as we wanted and could destroy this earth with as much pollution as we want. But if you were a congressman/president/any sort of politician, would you introduce legistlation that brought about these things, if you knew there was absolutely NO chance for them to pass? Sure, you might present a bill that calls for a little less regulation of something, because that has the potential to pass. But when we're debating your bill, if I stand up in the middle of the meeting and yell "Scott wants the free market to determine everything! He's ADMITTED it before! This is just a step toward that!", is that a valid argument against your bill?
    In my opinion, I don't think so. You do what you can to fix a broken system. Who cares what someone thinks is a perfect world? It's not what they're trying to accomplish.
    You debate about what's in the bill, because that's what matters. I'm pretty sure that when the Supreme Court looks at "legislative intent", they don't look at what the legislator thinks is a utopian society. They look at what was trying to be accomplished IN THE BILL. READ IT.

  28. "But when we're debating your bill, if I stand up in the middle of the meeting and yell "Scott wants the free market to determine everything! He's ADMITTED it before! This is just a step toward that!", is that a valid argument against your bill?"

    But that's just it, when it first came out that their intent was ultimately to get to a single payer system THEY DENIED IT! Then when you can go back and pull up speeches on YouTube and prove that's what they want they stop denying it?

    And I think if they were really trying to fix a problem, they'd know what they were trying to fix. Funny how it's gone from Obama calling it Healthcare Reform to Health Insurance Reform when he sees how the polls respond. Has anything in the bill changed to go along with that though? No. Because their stated goal is to get to a single payer system and they don't care what the American people have to say.

    "They look at what was trying to be accomplished IN THE BILL. READ IT."

    Well, I guess maybe by now some of them have had time to read it but when some of the first town hall meetings went down these people had no idea what was even in the bill! Obama didn't even know what was in the bill! Maybe you should demand that the government actually reads and understands what they're voting on.

  29. I have a hard time with discussing abortion. There are so many arguments, and everybody has their reasons for why it is wrong or is not wrong. There can never be a real solution.

    Oh well, I am giving my two cents, so to speak. I have never had an abortion, and as of now, I do not ever plan on having one. The way I see the word “abortion” is a conscious decision on KILLING a fetus or embryo. There is the word spontaneous abortion—a miscarriage. The way I see miscarriage is something that went wrong and the embryo or fetus did not survive. This could not be helped, and it should not be considered an abortion. We make it too easy for young women—hell, even children able to get pregnant. If a thirteen year old gets pregnant, she needs to know that there are other options than abortion. We need to educate on sex at even a younger age. Children can start their menstrual cycle at the age of 9 or even earlier. Once a child menstruate, she is valuable to becoming pregnant. I know sex education is often not an option at school, but maybe there needs to be. Young women need to realize that abortion is not the only solution. Some states do a third trimester abortion. How sick is that? Could you image being the doctor that delivered the baby, and hearing the baby cry and killing him or her? A fetus can survive at about 25 weeks or even before then with today medical technology. If would have to choose between an abortion or having the fetus at 25 weeks, I would automatically choose the 25 week option, and have the chance to let the fetus survive. I do not believe in abortion, however, I do not considered an abortion if it comes to the health of the mother. I could not answer this, but if it came to the mother or the child, who would you pick? I am a young adult, and not sexually active. If I would suddenly become pregnant, I would not have an abortion. I know that there are other options to consider. The safe haven law states that you can drop of a baby at any hospital, police station, and fire station NO QUESTIONS ASKED. If you would go up to a teenager and ask what the safe haven law is, how many would know the law? If a woman was raped, should she consider taking the morning after pill? I do not know, but I do think that the morning after pill should only be used in under certain circumstances. I think that it is a good thing for women to have access to it, but I think that woman abuse it. I realize that we can never really solve the issue when it comes to abortion, but we can stop some of it. For example, I firmly believe that after 25 weeks, abortion should not be considered an option. I want it to be for the record, as of right now, I am firmly against abortion. There are a lot of options, women need to know what her options are.

  30. I agree that abortion should be legal. I do not agree with it but I can understand for some cases such as rape, incest, or the mother's life is at stake. I agree with the women having the freedom to do as she wishes with her body but I highly disagree with partial birth abortions. There should be limits on how many times you can have an abortion, it should not be used as birth control.

  31. " They look at what was trying to be accomplished IN THE BILL. READ IT."

    Greiner I wish I could, but Obama has not endorsed or backed the HR 3200 house bill. He has no bill that anybody can read. He, infact, has denied knowledge of aspects of HR 3200, such as the explicit statement that private health insurance is going to be slowly banned out of existence.

    He keeps referring to "our proposal" or "my proposal" but he has no proposal! When we are outraged and say, "You've got death panels in that bill!" He cannot say, "Oh no your wrong, see here, page 36, says explicitly, no death panels". He just keeps speaking in platitudes and making vague statements about some phantom proposal that nobody can read or critique. Then he goes at talks about the lies and myths that people against this takeover are putting out there and all he says to refute the "lies" is that they are untrue. He has no evidence anywhere to the contrary.

    It is this vagueness, this failure to come out with any specifics, that has his polls plummeting. Obama has lost the trust. He said he's gonna save or create 4 million jobs, we got 16.9% U6 unemployment. He said if we don't pass porkulus right away without reading it, we might get 8% U3 unemployment. Now he is saying we'll get over 10%.

    And Greiner, I have been arguing about specifics of HR 3200, but I am also illustrating the blatant lies and propaganda being put out there by our president.

  32. "That's not what they're trying to achieve, because they know there's no way in hell they're going to get it!"

    Oh but Greiner, that is precisely what they are trying to achieve. And Barney Fwank admitted it.

    Happy viewing!

  33. "An important element in the integrity of the parents is their willingness to take full responsibility for their child right from the time of conception (whether it is consciously intended or not) acknowledging the he did not ask to be conceived or born and therefore has a right to his existence and individuality without demands on him to pay emotional or otherwise for his keep or to be grateful."

    Quote I found. Interestingly, was not written in direct regards to abortion, but I found it rather fitting.

  34. The controversial topic of abortion is difficult from any angle you look at. What constitutes a person's right is a very heated subject. I think a person should have the right to what he/she wants done for his/her body. That, I do not have a problem with. The problem I have with abortion, is that it involves more than one person. It involves both the mother and the unborn embryo/ fetus. What gives that women the right to kill the unborn child. I believe that unborn embryo/fetus deserves a chance at life. This embryo/fetus did not ask to be conceived and deserves to have rights!
    I like the quote that Blitz found. I agree with it completely! If two people are going to engage in sexual activity, they either need to use protection or be able to face the consequences and responsibilities that come with that activity!

  35. Every woman has the right to decide what she wants to do with her body. No one has the right to determine what's right or wrong for each individual woman. We don't know each other's circumstance,so who are we to judge one another?

  36. Every woman may have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body, but most people use that right in an abusive way. Just because you have the right to choose doesn't mean you should be allowed to have abortion after abortion. As I said in an earlier post we as adults have many rights, but we don't always know how and when to use that right. Abortion is wrong if it is because of our own negligence. By the way I think having the right to decide is based on a mature and sensible decision and not a selfish one.