NARAL vs. Roberts: Round 2

[vraiblonde]

http://factcheck.org/article342.html

NARAL Pro-Choice America announced it would start running a new ad to replace one that it yanked off the air Aug. 11 after widespread criticism.

Unlike the first ad, which falsely implied that Roberts had excused bombing of abortion clinics, this one mostly gets it right.

The latest ad quotes accurately and in context from a 1981 memo in which Roberts dismisses the notion that the Constitution spells out a right to privacy, notes his 1991 legal brief saying Roe v Wade was "wrongly decided," and correctly quotes an editorial from USA Today raising questions about Roberts legal record on privacy.

We have some small quibbles here and there - but overall judge this effort to be much closer to the facts than NARAL's short-lived first ad.

The ad:

Announcer: Privacy...equality...the right to choose...

(On Screen: Images of young families, employees in the workplace)

Announcer: Fundamental freedoms Americans have cherished for generations. But John Roberts dismisses one of our established liberties as the "so-called 'right to privacy.'" And co-wrote a brief arguing that Roe vs. Wade should be overruled. Roberts' legal record raises questions on whether he accepts the right to privacy.

(On screen: USA Today, August 15, 2005)

Announcer: There's just too much at stake to let John Roberts become a decisive vote on the Supreme Court.

I find it highly ironic that they'd show happy young families in a pro-abortion ad. And it's disturbing to me that these people will go to such lengths to make sure women can kill their unborn child.

It's just sick.

 

[bresamil]

I find it highly ironic that they'd show happy young families in a pro-abortion ad. And it's disturbing to me that these people will go to such lengths to make sure women can kill their unborn child.

It's just sick.

I often hear of people talking about abortion in cases of birth defects. Today I met a new family at school. Their middle child was born without lower legs or arms past the elbow. He was walking along on the nubs just fine and shook "hands" etc. There were a few double takes but no one stared or really treated him differently. Now I feel that people with the "birth defect" excuse don't have an excuse at all.

 

[hvp05]

I find it highly ironic that they'd show happy young families in a pro-abortion ad. And it's disturbing to me that these people will go to such lengths to make sure women can kill their unborn child.

I find it odd that you are still perturbed by their hypocrisy and fanaticism. Did you change your middle name when I wasn't paying attention?

Personally, I'm all for the loonies getting abortions. Do society a favor. Unfortunately, all too many of that ilk enjoy breeding.

Say, where is Qpid, anyway?

 

[vraiblonde]

Personally, I'm all for the loonies getting abortions. Do society a favor.

That's what I've always said, and I have the red karma to prove it

 

[rack'm]

Almost everyone I know that's had an abortion regretted it later.

 

[Larry Gude]

Can we just say...

...that we accept that NARAL opposses Roberts, wether it be the made up Roberts of their fantasies or the Roberts of 25 years ago or the Roberts of today, tomorrow and forever?

NARAL; we get it.

 

[willie]

I often hear of people talking about abortion in cases of birth defects. Today I met a new family at school. Their middle child was born without lower legs or arms past the elbow. He was walking along on the nubs just fine and shook "hands" etc. There were a few double takes but no one stared or really treated him differently. Now I feel that people with the "birth defect" excuse don't have an excuse at all.

Never say never but.........if I were in that middle kids position, I would be a strong believer in abortion.

 

[SamSpade]

Never say never but.........if I were in that middle kids position, I would be a strong believer in abortion.

This part has left me in a difficult philosophical position.

See, I generally believe that if *I* were faced with a dminished quality of life - and simply, death - I would hope to find some way to cope, because death is forever - you're not coming back. And children born with severe defects, if "given" that choice, would probably choose to live rather than die (yes, I know the illogic of that, but even insects prefer to continue to live, given the choice).

On the other hand - I worry that children with very severe defects would eventually become wards of the state after my passing - or if I live to be very old, that I would need to look after such a child until I am no longer able to. I'd possibly be guilty of bringing a life into the world that would always be miserable, even AFTER I'm dead.

I know that ending such a life is inconsistent with the philosophical view of supporting life, and holding it sacred - and what I've done thus far is hope that dilemma never happens. (Generally, I hate "what-ifs" because they're usually far-fetched scenarios designed to 'catch' an inconsistency).

 

[vraiblonde]

This part has left me in a difficult philosophical position.

One of the reasons I'm pro-choice is because not everyone who can have children should have children. Some parents would have a severely handicapped child and would do just fine - the kid would grow up normally, for the most part, and go on to lead a happy, successful life to the best of their ability. Other parents would lock the kid in the basement with a pitbull standing guard.

So if a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, I would say that's probably a better decision than raising it in an atmosphere of abuse. Because if they would cut that baby up and throw it in the trash, what else are they capable of? :shudder:

Qualifier: this is excepting 1st trimester abortions, which probably don't strike the woman as any more consequential than clipping their nails.

 

[Bruzilla]

I get the feeling that the NARAL ad is misleading by omission. I'm thinking there are a few sentences in Roberts's opinion that probably state that the right to privacy is fine, but that it's not a legal justification for abortion, and so Roe V Wade should be overturned.

BTW, I'm pro-choice for the same reason as Vrai. Until the pro-life crowd agrees to adopt and raise every unwanted child in America, I think abortion should stay. My only "irk" is that we should force the Congress to make it legal or outlaw it, but quit fighting over a truely non-existent right to abortion based on a myth.

 

[SamSpade]

BTW, I'm pro-choice for the same reason as Vrai. Until the pro-life crowd agrees to adopt and raise every unwanted child in America, I think abortion should stay.

I'm just in a quandary over the one point - I mean, my wife and I - and several friends - are *TRYING* to adopt, and I have to think that people who say that haven't gone through the process. It is exhausting, frustrating, time-consuming and *expensive* - and it doesn't matter what age of child you want, or race.

That being the case, I don't take that argument seriously - because I *would* do that. I'm *trying* to do exactly that now. I can't take EVERY child - but I'd take as many as I could afford.

 

[vraiblonde]

That being the case, I don't take that argument seriously - because I *would* do that.

I suspect the reason women get abortions instead of having their baby and putting it up for adoption is because they just flat don't want to be pregnant. Cramps their style. In my mind, it takes a special kind of woman to think outside their own whims and wants and actually carry a child for 9 months that they intend to give up for adoption. And there just aren't that many special women out there.

I wish you and the wife luck - adoption is a frustrating process. It's almost like the powers that be WANT it that way so women will get abortions instead.

 

[Bruzilla]

In my mind the adoption process in this country is far more criminal than any abortion practice. A woman can walk into an abortion clinic, make up a BS story or get a doctor to say her mental well being is "In Danger" and get anything from a first trimester to a partial-birth abortion with virtually no hassles.

But, is she decides to place the child up for adoption, then money gets involved... and where there's money there's lawyers. So that same kid who would have ended up going to the specimen jar or into a cremation fire suddenly becomes a commodity, and now there's all kinds of concern for "its" well being.

What I would like to see is a return to church and community driven "homes" for these kids, think of them as human dog pounds, where the pro-life folks could come, pay a small fee, and get their new adoptions. But alas... to many vultures who are feeding off the adoption carcass would be left out, so it'll never happen.

 

[vraiblonde]

So that same kid who would have ended up going to the specimen jar or into a cremation fire suddenly becomes a commodity, and now there's a kinds of concern for "its" well being.

Ain't that the truth. You could be some drug addicted slut laying in the gutter after getting out of prison for murdering your other children, and some court will happily let you have your remaining child back from foster so you can be a "family" again.

But you just try being a nice, middle-class intact family trying to adopt one of these kids and see the hoops they make you jump through.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I think that the government keeps it around just so they have something for people to take sides on, but that's just my own conspiracy.

I don't think abortion should be a leagal decision at all. I think that the AMA should make a decision on ethics when and abortion should and should not be performed. Have the AMA set a limit on how many weeks in term would be ok and after that say no. To me the whole this is an ethical decision anyways.