Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Meet Alito

the_mad_poster (640772) writes | more than 8 years ago

User Journal 21

A man who believes the only thing lower in the pecking order than a dirty liberal is a dirty whore out of her burkha.

There's nothing that warms the cockles of my heart quite like a guy who argued that a woman who gets raped, deceived (e.g. - tampering with birth control), or beaten by her husband can't get an abortion unless she... asks her husband if it's okay.

Nice. Way to go righties. You're real outstanding examples of the human species. Thanks for spreading the love.

A man who believes the only thing lower in the pecking order than a dirty liberal is a dirty whore out of her burkha.

There's nothing that warms the cockles of my heart quite like a guy who argued that a woman who gets raped, deceived (e.g. - tampering with birth control), or beaten by her husband can't get an abortion unless she... asks her husband if it's okay.

Nice. Way to go righties. You're real outstanding examples of the human species. Thanks for spreading the love.

cancel ×

21 comments

I blame Sandra Day O'Connor. (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 8 years ago | (#13915972)

Shut up and hold out for 4 more years.

But thats what you told me 4 years ago! What if a Dem doesn't get elected next time?

Well, then we'll invent some kind of new medical technology to keep you alive until they do get elected!!

Re:I blame Sandra Day O'Connor. (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916205)

Fuck Sandra. Fuck her in her dry old twat. If she hadn't voted for Georgie Boy in 2000, she wouldn't be in this predicament.

Re:I blame Sandra Day O'Connor. (1)

Red_Foreman (877991) | more than 8 years ago | (#13918243)

No, fuck the DNC for running an uncharismatic, waffling, indecisive dumbass like John Kerry instead of sticking with Dean.

And get over 2000 already. They won it fair and square. Besides, that was also the DNC's fault for going with another uncharismatic dumbass like Al Gore. But don't blame me, I voted for Bill Bradley.

And if we (Dems) nominate another uncharismatic dumbass or that bitch Hillary instead of Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, hell even John Edwards would be OK, we'll lose again. And we'll deserve it.

...sigh...

Take THAT, future generations (1)

dave-tx (684169) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916022)

Maybe it's the last act of desperation - these guys are so deep in the shitter, why not go ahead and appoint someone like this? Not like it can lower their approval ratings any further, and what an opportunity to make one last, permanent, impact.

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916119)

They can distract from the stink in their own pants, by blaming Dems when the whole confirmation process explodes into nastyness.

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916367)

The Democrats should not oppose this nominee. They should let the Republicans overturn Roe v. Wade. Then take the White House in 2008 as a result.

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916471)

If Roe were overturned, assuming the Democrats could take the House and Senate, would there be a chance of passing a constitutional amendment to restore it? This might be an interesting Plan B for the Dems.

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

dave-tx (684169) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916531)

Constitutional amendments are very hard to pass. This would be a very risky strategy.

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916570)

Of course... this entire process plays politics with the lives of all the women who suffer in the interim....

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

ces (119879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916850)

My predictions if Roe is overturned:

1. If the GOP still controls Congress, there will be Federal legislation to attempt to outlaw abortions. (if it can actually pass is another question entirely)
2. If the Democrats control Congress, there will be Federal legislation to keep the law as it currently stands.
3. Regardless of what Congress does many states will pass laws to keep things as they are now, while many other states outlaw abortion to one degree or another.
4. All of these laws will be challenged in court to one degree or another.
5. The anti-abortion groups will try to go after Griswold, Lawrence, and similar decisions.

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

ces (119879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916738)

Roe v. Wade is safe until another Justice retires. There are currently 5 Justices who support Roe and Casey.

The relevant questions are:
1. Will Kennedy move closer to Souter-Bryer-Ginsberg-Stevens in his voting/legal philosiphy? (essentially taking over the O'Connor role)
2. Where will Roberts voting/actual decisions fall in the ideological spectrum of the court?

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 8 years ago | (#13917128)

Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas. You're right.

I don't like it one little bit. The thing that gets me is that when Clinton chose a nominee, there were dozens of well qualified possible choices. When Bush chose a nominee, there were about a handful.

Re:Take THAT, future generations (1)

ces (119879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13919696)

I don't like it one little bit. The thing that gets me is that when Clinton chose a nominee, there were dozens of well qualified possible choices. When Bush chose a nominee, there were about a handful.

Well actually depending on your criterea there are plenty of potential nominees for Bush to choose from. It isn't like there aren't a fair number of conservative/libertarian judges, legal scholars, lawyers, current and former members of Congress and the like.

Heck just look at some of the alternatives to Meirs that were named by many of her Conservative opponents.

As to why some of those people might not be considered I have no idea.

Luttig (1)

ces (119879) | more than 8 years ago | (#13916903)

I kind of wish he'd picked Luttig instead. While Luttig is *VERY* conservative, he seems, like Roberts, hesitant to overturn prior preceedents.

On the flipside, it also would have been better if he had picked a full blown 'Constitution in Exile' type who wants to overturn almost every Federal law and Supreme Court decision since 1898 since many moderate Republicans might have a problem voting for a completely rabid Federalist Society follower.

Right. (1)

elmegil (12001) | more than 8 years ago | (#13917369)

Because we all know, single issue litmus tests are the be-all end-all. You're just playing into the same trap the GOP is, from the other side.

Would it be bad for the country for the supremes to overturn Roe v Wade? Damn straight it would. Would it be bad for the country to have a nominee who's a crony of a criminal president? Much much worse. And don't give me that "hold one 4 more years" shit either. She's OLD. She wants time with her family and husband before one or both of them kick it. Damn if you can't respect that kind of wish, then wtf can you respect?

Yeah, it's politically inconvenient. Deal. Go make an amendment specifically honoring the right to privacy, and end the debate.

Re:Right. (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 8 years ago | (#13922408)

There's a difference between a single-issue litmus test and pointing out that this guy's position on the matter was, in fact, that the state legislature had the power to make a wife subservient to a husband on individual medical issues.

Quit playing this "oh we have to be fair" bullshit. The guy is a mysognistic fuck and that's why he appeals to that subset of the conservatives that still gets all bleary eyed when it thinks about the "good old days" where you could just pop a bitch in the left eye to make her sit down, shut up, and take her rightful place at the foot of her husband.

If the conservatives don't want to be treated like illiterate, unevolved cavepeople, they ought to move out of their caves, take the step up to homo sapien sapien, and learn to read. I'm not going to pretend these sick bastards are equals, they're just sick bastards.

Slippery Slope Guy. (1)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 8 years ago | (#13917381)

Sure, today your wife or girlfriend can get an abortion without so much as telling you about it, but tomorrow they'll be taking your teenagers out back and putting a slug in their heads and there's not a damn thing you can do about it!

But seriously, I'm somewhat torn on this issue. First of all, I thought he wanted the husband / boyfriend to be informed, and that permission from them was not necessary (I could be wrong on this). Ultimately it should be the woman's decision, but that leaves the man out waving his dick in the wind (???). I mean, I can understand getting an abortion for health reasons, but what if about 3 months in the bitch suddenly changes her mind and doesn't think she's ready for kids? I still think it's her choice, but goddamnit that's your kid, too. There's not really a stance that all sides can agree on, unfortuately, and you can't really FORCE a woman to give birth, so I'm more or less satisfied with the way things are now.

Re:Slippery Slope Guy. (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 8 years ago | (#13917556)

Everything you need to know about abortion in relation to who gets what say in the matter:

100% of the potential health problems are on the woman.
100% of the medical decisions are hers to make.

All the guy does is spurt for 2 seconds, roll over, and go to sleep. To argue that he should have any legally enforced say after that is idiotic emotional nonsense. Abortion is a medical procedure, the woman is the only one involved medically. Simple as that.

In a trusted, loving relationship, they'll balance it out on their own and come to a mutual decision.

In a dysfunctional relationship where that wouldn't happen, why the hell would you want the guy to be able to enforce his opinion anyway?

Of course, that's a logical look at it. Conservatives aren't smart enough to be logical, so....

Re:Slippery Slope Guy. (1)

Tikiman (468059) | more than 8 years ago | (#13926718)

Abortion is a medical procedure, the woman is the only one involved medically.

Only if one, against science and common sense, does not define a fetus as a member of homo sapiens. To say that an abortion does not "involve" a fetus is like saying the standard birth process does not "involve" a fetus. The only difference is, after a natural birth you a human child that is alive and and after an abortion you have a human child that is not.

Re:Slippery Slope Guy. (1)

Abm0raz (668337) | more than 8 years ago | (#13930844)

Only if one, against science and common sense, does not define a fetus as a member of homo sapiens.

Not really. It can just as easliy be defined as a parasite, feeding off the host body, depriving it of nutrients, health, and well-being. In that sense, abortion can be looked at in the same vein as other invasive surgical procedure to remove diseased or infected tissue, such as masectomies, de-worming, or draining an abcess.

As far as I'm concerned, a fetus is a parasite and not a living human being until it reaches the point where it could survive and grow on it's own outside of the womb.

As a famous comedian once said, "I'm all for abortion, up until fetus is about the age of 17."

-Ab

Re:Slippery Slope Guy. (1)

Tikiman (468059) | more than 8 years ago | (#13931362)

Not really. It can just as easliy be defined as a parasite, feeding off the host body, depriving it of nutrients, health, and well-being. In that sense, abortion can be looked at in the same vein as other invasive surgical procedure to remove diseased or infected tissue, such as masectomies, de-worming, or draining an abcess.

Ok, but - it still is a creature, and it still is a human by virture of membership of homo sapeins. No matter how you choose to look at it, you cannot change these fundamental, scientifically obvious facts.

As it turns out, even the designation of "parasite" is highly inaccurate as well. Parasitic relationship always involve different species, which is not the case here. Furthermore, parasites are always invading organisms that come from outside the host, which is not the case here as the other organism is (almost always) conceived inside the host. Furthermore, biologically, a woman's body goes out of its way to support a growing fetus, by suppressing immunological response and facilitating close contact with the fetus through the placenta. Again, it is not typical of a parasitic relationship for the host to voluntarily support and nourish the other organism.

As far as I'm concerned, a fetus is a parasite and not a living human being until it reaches the point where it could survive and grow on it's own outside of the womb.

Feel free to think that - but superficial similarity to a parasite does not change that fact that a fetus is a distinct organism with human DNA. For some odd reason, you would classify a 23 week fetus as "non-parasite" because it theoritically can survive outside the womb. However, it is almost exactly the same as a "parasite" 20 week fetus. Your strained definitions of "human being" and "parasite" hinge solely on how well incubators can keep premature babies alive.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...