Natalie 1 Aug 2005
1:00 am

Questions for Ms. Clark:
Are you a mother?  Somehow I doubt it because if you were, you’d instinctively know better than to use a political opponent’s child as a weapon against them.  I would think a woman of your experience and education would know better regardless.  I know—you were just kidding, right?
Is that your real hair, or a leftover display of ?dangerous humor, liberated eroticism and informed revolt??  Just kidding, of course.
Which rights are you referring to?  The ones enumerated in the constitution, or the ones imagined and dubiously inserted therein without bothering with all that tiresome ratification nonsense?
You needn’t worry about the former, but you may the latter.

Liberal 1 Aug 2005
11:14 am

Natalie,

The Constitution establishes the judiciary for the specific purpose of interpreting the Constitution. That document could not have listed every single possible right because it was written in a time when such rights were inconceivable, such as abortion, for that practice did not yet exist!

The Supreme Court did not overstep its bounds in logically concluding that a women’s fundamental right to privacy applied to her own womb.

If you think that people should only be given rights explicitly stated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, then please familiarize yourself with the 9th amendment.

Natalie 1 Aug 2005
8:42 pm

When facing difficult moral and cultural questions, one should seek counsel from mature, wise and accomplished men and women.  These should be people who possess a consistent and clear moral vision, as opposed to those who might bend at the slightest political breeze, for they ye shall not trust.
“There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life ... that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.
“What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation,  that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.”—Reverend Jesse Jackson writing in a 1977 National Right to Life News article.
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.
I share the confidence of those who feel that America is working to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society’s problems—an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens.
When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war,  to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”— Sen. Edward Kennedy, [D-Mass.], in a letter to a constituent, August 3, 1971

“I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”—Bill Clinton, in a letter to Arkansas Right to Life, September 26, 1986
“Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception…. The [Supreme Court’s abortion] ruling was unjust, and it is incumbent on the Congress to correct the injustice.  I have always been supportive of pro-life legislation. I intend to remain steadfast on this issue…. I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs.”—Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) in a 1984 writing.
“It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply.”   “During my 11 years in congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding for abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal.”—Al Gore speaking in Letters to constituents from Sept. 15, 1983, August 22, 1984 and May 26 1987.
“I believe life begins at conception”—John Kerry, 2004
“Life trumps privacy”  Natalie, August 1, 2005

Rob 2 Aug 2005
1:04 am

“When facing difficult moral and cultural questions, one should seek counsel from mature, wise and accomplished men and women.  These should be people who possess a consistent and clear moral vision, as opposed to those who might bend at the slightest political breeze, for they ye shall not trust.”
In plain English: when faced with difficult questions, do not attempt to discover the answers for yourself; rather, defer to the moral authority of your leaders.
A highly dubious principle to follow, IMO.

Natalie 4 Aug 2005
9:55 am

Former Watergate prosecutor and Harvard law professor Archibald Cox once wrote, “Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” The late Stanford law school dean John Hart Ely said the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, who argued Al Gore’s post-election case before the Supreme Court in 2000, has said of Roe that “behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton, criticized Roe v. Wade before joining the court. In 1985, she called it an act of “heavy-handed judicial intervention” that “ventured too far.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_4_05_SC.html

Jessica Clark 4 Aug 2005
10:18 am

Natalie:

Are you a woman? If so, you should “instinctively” know that being forced to have an unwanted child because of oppressive social mores is psychologically and economically damaging to both the the mother and her offspring. And that unplanned pregnancies spring not only from a lack of what you might consider proper chastity, but from women who have been coerced into sex or improperly educated about the means of preventing pregnancy because of ill-researched and ineffectual abstinence campaigns.
Why do the “rights” of the fetus supercede the “rights” of those of us already here on earth?

Matt H. 4 Aug 2005
2:52 pm

Natalie is a Neocondroid.

Natalie 5 Aug 2005
10:16 am

I don’t think anyone has said that a fetus, who incidentally is usually also found on Earth, has more rights than its mother.  I and quite likely a majority of Americans think that a fetus is a SOMEONE, who, regardless of their stage of development, deserves EQUAL protection. 
I instinctively know as a mother, Jessica, that destroying my baby, whether it happens to be inside our outside my womb, on Earth or on Mars, would have been devastating not only to that small human while at its most vulnerable, but to my conscience sooner or later.  There is many a murderer that goes for years denying to him of herself the significance of what was done by ending an innocent human life.  There is many a woman who eventually comes to deeply regret having had an abortion.  Eventually, by whatever manifestation, there is a price to be paid.  Assuming of course one has a conscience.
Apparently you are not a mother, or presumably you would have so stated.  If that changes, I would be astonished to learn that your selfish concerns about psychology and economics were unaffected by the birth of your first child. 

Your concerns about the injustices that sometimes occur are valid to a point, but not to the point of asking a court to re-work the constitution and trounce the concerns on the other side of the equation. 
When the Supreme Court—acting not as an interpretive body but as a legislative one—conjures up a right to kill a developing baby human based on another invention called “the right to privacy”, I’ve got a big problem.
As presumably would you if some future court ruled, over the objections of 50 state initiatives stating marriage can be between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, that gay marriage is “unconstitutional”—based let’s just say on the reasoning that the constitution was founded on biblical principles, one being that homosexuality is a sin. 
A hypothetical case such as this should never be heard by the Supreme Court, whose function was never meant to squelch and bring an unsatisfactory end to people’s moral and ethical arguments where clear constitutional principles are not in play.  Nor should they have heard Roe v Wade, as I know Ms. Roe today upon hindsight agrees.

Jessica Clark 5 Aug 2005
10:46 am

Natalie—geez, I get it. You’re a mother imbued with the eternal sanctity of a sacred charge, and I’m some dissolute, narcissistic urbanite, and probably a lesbian to boot.
Give it a rest!

Diana Martinez 5 Aug 2005
11:58 am

Natalie,

For all the discussion of right or wrong, beliefs and convictions about the “right to life,” I cannot help but see there is a gaping hypocrisy in the argument which favors the banning of abortion.
“the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.”
What about the barbaric practice of clandestine abortions? How ironic that an opinion which says it values life has such complete disregard for the lives of women who, desperate for a solution, have undergone such a tragic means to an end.

When it was illegal in the past, countless women had been butchered by botched abortions. The endlessly flawed argument for banning abortion outright ceases to acknowledge the fact that it is a need-based action. You can try to eliminate the symptom of unwanted pregnancies, but you cannot cure it by forcing women to put their own lives at risk, and they would as history has shown. The value which “our civilization” places on human life should not forget this fact.
“I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society?s problems”
No one would say it is a cure to society’s problems, but whether you accept it or not, it is one response to a particular problem that will never disappear by simply forcing a religious ideology upon the rest of society.
“I share the confidence of those who feel that America is working to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves.”
That’s not a very comforting thing to hear. Given that those conservative moralists who agree with this statement would also like to see abstinence-only mis-education in schools, prefer gag rules on the discussion of abortion, and who would never agree to a government-aided health care system- as drastic cuts are being made to countless education and social welfare programs. How, then, will the need for abortions be eliminated- by religious ideology, sympathy, and hope alone?

Turning a blind eye to the reality that it cannot be willed out of existence is no solution. It is madness.

Natalie 6 Aug 2005
1:35 pm

Ms. Clark, YOU started the discussion.  I guess you feel you also have the authority to shut it down.  But that’s been my point from the start, don’t you see?  “Give it a rest” is essentially what the court said to millions of Americans who view abortion not as helpful to women and beneficial to society, but quite the opposite. 
Your colorful self-assessment is an admission that you really do “get it”.  You understand that the pro-abortion stance is based largely on selfishness and wanting the ability to legally with court approval avoid the inconvenience that results from illicit behavior.  And of course disdain for men is a factor not to be diminished.

Natalie 6 Aug 2005
1:38 pm

Diana, the real “gaping hypocrisy” comes from those making the quotes you highlighted.  Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Al Gore held strong pro-life opinions at a time when presumably back alley abortions were alive and well.
They had a sense that abortion is simply wrong.  They had a sense that a society accepting of it in common practice would be one with a weakened moral fabric, and one who’s value of life would be lessened.
For some reason, these men lost the courage of their convictions and gave in to political pressures.  For some reason the Democratic party, of which I use to be a member, became a slave to a small but vocal segment of society that rebuffs any effort that might serve to tarnish the sanctity of their new ill-gotten “right” to abortion.  Counseling women to consider adoption over abortion implies there’s something wrong with abortion.  Informing women of its long term and quite likely devastating psychological and physical consequences obviously does as well.
I may be pro-life, but I’m actually pro-choice.  I believe in giving people the power to make their own choices in what laws should govern the ability of a woman to end the life of another distinct entity that happens to temporarily reside inside her, and what remedies should be made available to address the types of concerns you raise.  I believe the Supreme Court had no constitutional basis in taking these choices away, and I believe they’ve done the nation and women in particular a great disservice in so doing.
I have a friend that deeply regrets her three abortions.  Approaching menopause, she looks longingly at other children.  She feels great guilt for killing three entities that could have been playing among them.  She feels duped by the notion put forth by NOW and the like that the ability to have an easy no questions asked abortion was somehow in her best interests.  She now counsels others to think twice and then think some more.

——-