Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anti-choice doesn't end at Roe v. Wade -- they're after Griswold too.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 11:41 AM
Original message
Anti-choice doesn't end at Roe v. Wade -- they're after Griswold too.
Cross-posting from the Pro-choice forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=396x317

Please read this, it's very important.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
The Vinyl Ripper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. I've known this for a long time....
And this is completely unsurprising to anyone that has been paying attention to the religious right for the last couple of decades.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. I didn't say it was surprising --
I said it was important.

And a lot of people don't pay a lot of attention to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanie Baloney Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yep, and since the SCOTUS essentially represents the Vatican...
they would happily return us to a time when simply buying condoms was a humiliating rite of passage for a man and a woman needed her husband's permission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Can you back that incredible claim up?
cause on the face of it, it's more than a little implausible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Religious affiliations of SCOTUS 5 of 9
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 12:22 PM by EVDebs
http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html

don't want to risk excommunication now, would we ?

"I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don’t have as many people who believe it."-- George Carlin

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
In case you didn't know, the Catholics, and many other Christians have a little catchphrase that they generally repeat in these sorts of situations.

PS I'm an atheist, but even I know that SCOTUS is not about to vote on cases decided by their Catholicism. If they did, they'd probably side with every single criminal appeal, commute all death sentences, and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Then you need to review Scalia's history.
Seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yeah, cause he commuted all those death penalty cases, right?
crikey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. He's a cafeteria catholic (like all catholics) - but his cafeteria serves up only the
anti-freedom servings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Don't blame Catholicism for him being a right wing asshole (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It's certainly a tragic convergence of factors. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanie Baloney Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Five of the justices are Catholic;
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 12:21 PM by Joanie Baloney
the Pope has been pretty clear on how he feels about public officials following church doctrine. What's so incredible about drawing the conclusion they may decide in favor of the Church instead of the people?

Edit: typololgy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Because they haven't done so yet
the church is staunchly opposed to a huge number of things that the US supports... EG THE DEATH PENALTY. Jesus. I'd expect that a few people around here might at least know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. The hypocrisy of the church is also well known. SMOM, 'Their Will Be Done' article
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 12:47 PM by EVDebs
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1983/07/willbedone.html

Present at the creation (of the CIA) and being a 'sovereign military order' with a seat at the UN and at the Vatican's right hand and all. Crikey, I'd assume an apologist would 'at least know that' (snark).

New Pope Ordered Kerry Be Denied Communion
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/04/20/684/83575

and our Founding Fathers were to be excommunicated if they were Freemasons,

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/RomanCatholics.html

and possibly any Catholics in Freemasonry today should have contacted their bishop first (after 1983).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanie Baloney Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. That's kind of a flawed agrument...
We should ignore all the speculation that * is going to invade Iran, because he hasn't done so yet?

Remember these guys are neo-cons first, but when the time comes that their fascism aligns with the church doctrine, why is too much to speculate that they will likely not be deciding in favor of reproductive freedom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cgrindley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. read the thread it didn't say might...
the post claimed that SCOTUS was making decisions based on Catholic doctrine. Clearly, they are not. They are making decisions based on Neo-Con Philosophy and/or strict constructionist philosophy. There is no need to bring the Catholic Church aboard when you already have Neo-Cons and Constructionists both of whom would be automatically opposed to abortion rights.

Remember, the Catholic Church might not like abortion or stem cell research or birth control, but it also hates capital punishment and despises poverty. SCOTUS likes capital punishment and it hates the poor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Case study, former DOD IG Joseph Schmitz
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 01:40 PM by EVDebs
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0507-03.htm

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f476.html

Schmitz is a member of SMOM, Knights of Malta,

http://www.nndb.com/people/466/000104154/

(BTW, weirdness with sister Mary Kay huh ?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. "A la carte Catholics" reading from the Opus Dei side of the menu.
Hostile to liberation theology ... Old Testament "Christians" ... back to the Dark Ages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OregonBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
5. Someone who uses youtube please ask the question" Exactly what does Governor
Romney mean when he says "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." Is he saying that he opposes birth control pills or all forms of birth control? Do all of the Republican candidates believe that life should be defined as beginning at conception?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. The press needs to ask Mitt if he is a 'spermacist'
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 12:30 PM by EVDebs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus (scroll down a little and read about spermacists). Does the Catholic/Mormon position on this converge with this theory ?

"The term homunculus was later used in the discussion of conception and birth. In 1694, Nicolas Hartsoeker discovered "animalcules" in the semen of humans and other animals. This was the begining of spermists' theory, who held the belief that the sperm was in fact a "little man" (homunculus) that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child. This seemed to them to neatly explain many of the mysteries of conception. It was later pointed out that if the sperm was a homunculus, identical in all but size to an adult, then the homunculus may have sperm of its own. This led to a reductio ad absurdum, with a chain of homunculi "all the way down". This was not necessarily considered by spermists a fatal objection however, as it neatly explained how it was that "in Adam" all had sinned: the whole of humanity was already contained in his loins. The spermists' theory also failed to explain why children tend to resemble their mothers as well as their fathers, though some spermists believed that the growing homunculus assimilated maternal characteristics from the womb environment in which they grew<2>."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. That is disturbingly ignorant.
Yowza.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
18. My aunt worked for operation rescue. She bragged to me that after
they outlawed abortion, they will outlaw birth control and in-vitro fertilization. They want total control over reproduction.


I sent in a question for the republican debate. My question asked them if they believe there is a right to privacy. This goes back to the Griswold case.

A Washington lawyer told me that the Republicans were against Roe V Wade because it was built upon Griswold and the affirmation of the right to privacy. They didn't care about the unborn, they don't feel Americans should have a right to privacy.


If you go to the video questions for the republican debates, look for number 1408

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate Hit the "Submit your question" button and you will see the entries and a place to search for videos by number.

It's real easy to uploade videos. If you are concerned about abortion and our right to privacy, make a video and send it in. I did mine with a digital camera. I added lights and did several takes to get it right. Don't be afraid of getting close to the camera. I was within 3 ft of the camera, maybe as close as two feet.

I used Video Impressions to edit the movie. It might have been supplied with your video camera. Your OS might have some video software like iMovie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Ah, so not just control over reproduction, but control over EVERYTHING.
Yikes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Vinyl Ripper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. WinXP has Windows Movie Maker..
Two freeware tools I have found very useful for making videos with a digital camera.

VirtualDub: Sharpen, brighten, darken, resize and otherwise manipulate digital video..

http://www.virtualdub.org/

Deshaker, a software steadicam plugin for VirtualDub: Take that unsteady digital camera video and make it look like it was shot on a steadicam.

http://www.guthspot.se/video/deshaker.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. In an old MacAddict (now MacLife) they had plans for a PVC
pipe steady cam. It looked very easy and cheap to make.

They were inspired by this one.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
22. k&r...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fizzgig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
27. i had this conversation a few days ago
my uncle told me that outlawing abortion really wouldn't take freedom away from anyone...i jumped right over that statement (although i wanted to knock him about a bit) to what would happen if it were overturnd ie: griswold and how far-reaching the potential outcomes could be beyond the issue of reproductive rights. everyone at the table just looked at me, slightly horrified...apparently they'd never heard of griswold.

i've been making this argument for years and hope that more people continue to be vocal about it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Griswold v. Connecticut ... for those who are interested "right to marital privacy".
Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 04:39 PM by EVDebs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

The article mentions the Bowers case in TX with this,

"...no legitimate state interest...intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Vinyl Ripper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Almost no one has heard of Griswold n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-26-07 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. The State's has an interest in your genitals. Go figure ! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC