The End of Legal Abortion? The 'Nuclear Option'

It's pretty clear that one of the reasons Tom Dascal lost his Senate seat was due to his obstructionism over judicial nominees. I highly doubt, however, that the Democrats will end their practice of not allowing an up or down vote on the Senate floor for Mr Bush's conservative nominees.

Nothing has incensed the social conservatives more. Remember when they pressured the Republican Senators to hold an all night session to put the Democratic filibuster on display? I really believe that the stakes have been raised with the 4 seat Republican pick up, and that it's not going to be long before the issue comes to a head over a Supreme Court nominee.

The big question that I have is, "Will Bush nominate someone dead set on reversing Roe vs Wade?" If he does, the Democrats will surely try to filibuster. If they do, I think the Republicans will use the 'nuclear option' to change the rules of debate in the Senate, where a simple majority (51 votes) is required to close debate on nominees. Maybe they'll use the 'nuclear option' regardless.

What is the 'nuclear option' and how does it work? See link:
www.cfif.org...

Yes, it's ugly. But it's apparently Constitutional. Get scared everyone. I suspect the Republicans will us this to stack the courts over the next four years. Look for legal abortion to be outlawed.

And good job if they manage it. Time to get rid of abortion once and for all (or at least most of them).

Seriously. I support whatever it takes to wrest control of the Judical System back from the activist liberal judges that currently pollute our system. It's called TORT REFORM folks....

How about quimical castration for all single males with an overactive MR. happy, that out to stop abortion alright.

That's what's fascinates me about liberals, they are outraged by war but they won't hesitate to deliberately kill an innocent, unborn child. One question: Why do people get so mad when a pregnant woman is murdered?. Because they KNOW two lives were lost, not one. To them the concept of life is relative to their own convenience.




[edit on 4-11-2004 by Vladtepes]

Well, I understand your view points on why you believe a life is being taken.

I do not believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control.

I do believe a woman has the right to determine her actions and not the government.

I'm okay with abortion up to the 18th day. After that day I look down on abortion.

I'm also okay with abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the woman's life is in danger.

However, if roe v. wade was overturned I would hate to see a return to back alley abortions and starvation methods. I'd rather have women educated on the consequences of the decision and givern alternatives. If the woman is firm in her decision then she should be allowed to have an abortion.

Question for people for/against abortion. If a woman is going to have an abortion do you think the father should be allowed to step in and say he wants the kid?

Vladtepes: The example of outrage over war and an unborn child can be reversed with the same logic. If you are so conservative and against abortion, you should also by nature be against war for the innocent ALWAYS die.

Innocents who MAY die at war are either killed intentionally or not, and when their life is threatened they may or may not be able to save their lives

Abortion is another issue, a deliberate murder of an innocent human who has no way to defend himself.

Life begins when the egg is fertilized, triggering cell division (growth), the first stage of a living creature

Are you a woman and raped? DO you think you would like to bring a child on the world from someone who raped you? Don�t think so.
Think women should have some rights in this case.
Of course not whenever they want.
But rape seems a good reason for me.

[edit on 5-11-2004 by Calibre]

It would be completely appropriate for the Supreme Court to reverse Row v. Wade. It is a horrible decision with no direct support in the Constitution (I am a Strict Constructionist). If you support abortion rights, take it to the legislatures where it belongs. However, since I believe that an unborn baby is a human life, that human life demands protection. A society should be judged by how it protects its most vulnerable. Who is more vulnerable than unborn children? The death of more than one million of them every year is a national disgrace.

Do you want disgrace ludahai how about all the children that live in poverty in our nation "born" children in poverty.

Do you want disgrace how about girls that become pregnet by their own family members, will you take care of a child of a rape victim or incest.

Do you want disgrace, how about all the innocent people dying in Iraq and the ones than die in Afghanistan because Jesus in the white house is in a Christian mission.

Do you want disgrace how about all the propaganda to give men more power to MR. Happy so it can "perform" better, but poor women are finding harder and harder to get protection because the only places that can provide free "are on a mission from God" go read in the news about it, the denial of anti conception aid to women because of "religious" believe.

I am not a religious person and I believe in god and my god is not a politician and he does not make laws or make decisions over women rights because that is not his job, men are the ones doing it for him, if he wanted to have something done he would come to earth and doing himself.

GET men and the human races are the one that had created all the laws in this world God did not

.