Abortion

quote:

---

The thing of great wonder is that there is great doubt among the religious right; as always, they seek certainty.

---

Well, the conservatives have been burned before, as have the liberals. After a few years on the bench, a justice often realizes that they are not beholden to any political ideology and may feel free to come to her own understandings of the law. Some of Scalia's funniest writings from the bench, for example, are the ones where he's clearly feeling betrayed by those of his colleagues who were supposed to be knee-jerk conservatives.Frankly, I'm surprised that Roe has not yet been overturned. I remember one of the last times the Court had the oppurtunity to overturn it, and the impression I got from O'Connor's decision was that if the Court continued to reverse previous decisions willy-nilly depending on which faction had control, the respect that was due the judicial branch would be eroded.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

And one that requires a flexible response. That is the crux of the matter here, because people do have different opinions.

---

If we're going to make the laws "flexible" then how do you define how flexible the law should be? Shouldn't we get rid of minimum wage laws and child labor laws too? The former clearly tramples individual choice, liberty and the Constitutional right to privacy while the latter clearly infringes on the rights of the parent to raise their children as they please.That's only the beginning. OSHA would be next. And while we're in the neighborhood we need to abolish alcohol and cigarette taxes, smoking bans, the ban on recreational drugs, the regulation of prescription drugs, and stop even thinking about "fat taxes" because of the Constitutional right to privacy. It's my body, dadgummit, and I should have the choice of what to do with it. I trust you would back up all these repeals, RAZD? As well as the vice laws? Since you agree with me that we should be "flexible" and let individuals choose what they can do. Yes, there is irony here, but it's that the Left talks about "privacy rights" and at the same time wants to control how many cigarettes people can smoke and where, and how many Big Macs they eat.This message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2005 10:14 AM

quote:

---

Here you are arguing that the State should be an advocate for children's rights over those of the parents. Yet is not the point of families a recognition that there are parents who should have control over the rights of their offspring? Replacing parents with the state based on an idea that the state will know better is pretty dangerous.

---

All of the SCOTUS rulings I have seen over the issue place primary responsibility for children's raising -- including economic concerns -- squarely in the hands of the parents. The point of the exercise is to "replace parents with the state" -- that's hyperbole.However, there is well entrenched in Western law the idea that the state exists to protect certain rights of people from other people. That's basically why we have laws. It's why murderers, thieves, and the like are prosecuted--they deny the fundamental rights of others. In those instances, yes, the state does "know better" than the convicted and has the power and responsibility to reprimand those parties.When a parent does not act in the best interest of the child--in a criminal sense--the state does have authority to intervene. This is not usurping the parent so much as stepping in where parents have failed to meet the obligations placed upon them. This too has been supported by numerous court cases, the earliest I have seen goes back to 1922, and the precedent was firmly established even then.

quote:

---

If children really do have rights, then what can parents do at all? How can they teach their children a religion by forcing them to go to church (that violates many rights), set curfews, limit the friends they can see, use corporal punishments, limit what they can read, forcing them to go to school, etc?

---

Does sending a child to church constitute abuse, holmes? Would a Grand Jury consider it enough to indict? I guess it depends on what happens at the services.Children don't have all the rights of adults and I have not meant to imply that they do. Children don't vote. They don't drive cars. They can't hold public office. They generally don't manage their own college savings funds either or make their own medical decisions.In many of these things parents step in as part of their own responsibility. This is not an abridgement of the child's "rights". However, gross neglect is. This isn't anything new, though, and yet parents aren't going to jail for taking their kids to church.

quote:

---

But isn't that also what motivates the parents to do those other things that you do not like? With perhaps the exception of forced slavery for simple profit of the parents, all other things are generally the parents looking out of the interests of their children.

---

And it has been ruled that parents cannot serve the perceived spiritual well-being of the child when it does demonstrable harm to their physical well-being. The freedom of religion is not absolute when it comes to harming others, even if they are in your legal custody.

quote:

---

And of course this discussion of rights of children to GET things is also interesting. They have a right to education and medical services? Then why are we shifting toward privatized schooling and as yet have no socialized medical system. If the state can say the parents MUST provide X because receiving X is the right of the child, then is the State not compelled in the same fashion, especially when it can abrogate the rights of parents in that name?

---

The state doesn't already do this?You mean, if you starve a child, Child Services won't take the child away and provide care?This message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2005 10:01 AMThis message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2005 10:08 AM

recently, the court has purposely avoided bringing up cases that would be highly politically charged specifically for that reason. sometimes they purposely bring things up just to uphold current standards but they very rarely bring things up to overturn them.

quote:

---

recently, the court has purposely avoided bringing up cases that would be highly politically charged specifically for that reason. sometimes they purposely bring things up just to uphold current standards but they very rarely bring things up to overturn them.

---

During that long period in the Robert's confirmation hearing in which both sides were talking about abortion without actually mentioning abortion Roberts winked about "other factors" being considered when overruling previous decisions, one being the credibility of the court.

we can only hope he seeks to maintain it because our court system has enough problems with credibility without the SC screwing itself.

That's interesting, since if I recall correctly that was part of O'Connor's reasoning when she wrote a decision that did not overturn Roe.Edited to add:
Oops. The post to which I responded is itself a response to a conversation where I already said this. I guess I lost track of the conversation. Heh.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 02-Nov-2005 08:37 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

According to the ruling of a recent judge, it's only abuse if it's not a Christian church.But, hey, no theocracy here!

quote:

---

According to the ruling of a recent judge, it's only abuse if it's not a Christian church.

​

But, hey, no theocracy here!

---

Do you have the opinion handy? Or at least the name of the case?

It was from a divorce proceeding, so the opinion and case may not be public. You can read about it here: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000300044700/

Okay, that's retarded.Maybe Judge Bradford's court in Marion County, Indiana, is a theocracy.Didn't take it long to be overruled though.The Indianapolis StarThis message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2005 04:54 PM

Oh, right. Just another "isolated incident." Uh-huh.

quote:

---

Oh, right. Just another "isolated incident." Uh-huh.

---

A single instance is an "isolated incident". By definition. Certainly not enough to make the US a "theocracy".If there are more, you didn't cite them.This message has been edited by gene90, 11-02-2005 06:53 PM

Where in the definition of "single" do you find an implication of isolation?One incidence is, by definition, single; but there's nothing implicit in "single" that means it can't be related to other single incidents. I have in the past. I didn't now because they weren't relevant to the topic under discussion; that is, "religion abuse."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-02-2005 06:55 PM

quote:

---

One incidence is, by definition, single; but there's nothing implicit in "single" that means it can't be related to other single incidents.

---

It could be related to other instances, but no such instances were offered. Further this single event was taken as an indication of a "theocracy"--I presume that to include the entire United States. Pretty ambitious for a single decision from Monroe County, Indiana, and a ruling that was quickly overturned.

quote:

---

I have in the past.

---

No, I'm sure this happens quite often on the lower levels of the judicial system because I'm sure that some small number of judges is anti-Wicca. I'm also sure they tend to get overturned, as your example did.