world

Obama seeks Supreme Court nominee who backs women's rights

22 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

The abortion issue is simple: if it goes against your religion or beliefs, then don't do it. You many promote your religion and beliefs and offer council, but you may not use the law to do that. If you are a man who wants her to have the baby, wake the heck up. The man has so many ways to prevent pregnancy and darn near all the control. Don't expect the woman to suffer for your mistakes.

Why do people insist on making this hard?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard, Who told you simple issues are that simple for simple minds? Otherwise people like tiller would still be alive. Teach ur daughter or wife not to have abortion if you believe its evil. Dont force your will on others. But those idiots would never get it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard-- It's not just the man's "mistake". Why do people insist on making things so black and white? This is my problem with a lot of the pro-choice comments I read-- It makes it sounds as if the woman had no say whatsoever in the pregnancy. Like the baby is always forced upon her and it's wrong and unfair to say that maybe she should have taken responsibility for it instead of just aborting it with an attitude akin to popping a zit or something. Obviously this is not ALL cases, particularly that of rape victims, or women who's lives may be at risk with the pregnancy. And other women do take it much more seriously than that. I am simply on the side that wants to see more education for everyone regarding the subject so that choices like this don't HAVE to be made at all. I wish people would stop making it sound like every case is as open as shut as someone just FORCING her to have sex, forcing her to ignore all the ways to avoid pregnancy, etc, etc. It takes two to make a baby, that's all I'm saying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Since President Obama has brough the issue of abortion in the mix in regards to his choice for a Supereme Court judge, I would like to point out a huge legal double-standard; if a man kicks his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach to end a pregnancy, the man is looking at 2nd degree murger but if a woman ends the same pergnancy, it becomes her body, her choice. I am generally pro-choice but there seems to be a lack of coherent legal standing regarding unborn children. Are they people with all the rights and privileges or are they just masses of tissue? Either way, I think it's legally dubious for that standard to depend on an individual woman's feelings at a certain moment. Maybe instead of using the Supreme Court as a forum for activism, the Court should be used to define and uphold the laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

samwatters-- That is a really good point. Where do we draw the line? Is it only murder if someone else does it?

And just to clarify from my previous post, I am not anti-choice. If a woman who has considered/been exposed to all her options decides that she wants to terminate her pregancy, I cannot tell her she can't do that. The law should not do that. Just like the law should not tell you who to sleep with or who to marry or anything like that. But I am pro-education, and I believe in equal responsibility. And I do believe that a fetus is a life that you are ending, whether you decide to do it or someone else does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you Kokorocloud for your comment and your willingness to discuss this most important issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Giving women legal rights to choose what to do with their own bodies? That's outrageous, even in the 21st century. I expect our GOP and conservative friends to be dead against this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@SushiSake3, I am Pro-Choice but two consistent complaints I hear about the Pro-Choice position are the double-standards regarding the unborn child's topsy-turvey legal status and the issue of father-subsidized child support-versus-no authority regarding the decision to have,keep, abort the child. Resolve these inconsistencies and rational debate will lead to a rational solution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Talk about cherry picking. Those 8 Democrat controlled states that voted against ratification include such 21st century hotbeds of liberal elitism as Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia.

It was also a Republican administration that started and conducted the civil war against those freedom loving, state's rights defending Confederates. But just ignore that and keep using your ancient history selectively.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would probably agree that "comparing the GOP when the Constitution was being drafted to the GOP of today is not a very clever thing to do" but I would look as hilariously uninformed as the troll.

The Republican Party was formed in 1860, 73 years after the Constitution was ratified.

The 19th Amendment, granting women the vote, was ratified in 1919.

Susan B Anthony was a Republican.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

samwatters: I am Pro-Choice but two consistent complaints I hear about the Pro-Choice position are the double-standards regarding the unborn child's topsy-turvey legal status and the issue of father-subsidized child support-versus-no authority regarding the decision to have,keep, abort the child. Resolve these inconsistencies and rational debate will lead to a rational solution.

I'm in the same boat. I'm pro-choice but I've never understood the "my body, my choice" argument. I'm guessing that a man can't go into a paternity hearing and say, "her body, her choice" and walk out the door. The rights vs. responsibilities inequality needs to be cleared up. The situation now gives the woman the right to decide if she wants to be a mother and the man is just kind of along for the ride.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kokorocloud said: It's not just the man's "mistake". Why do people insist on making things so black and white?

There is not much grey to work with here.

It takes two to make a baby, that's all I'm saying.

Not quite correct. It takes two to have consensual sex, and sex is not necessarily making a baby. When an accidental pregnancy happens it was 100 percent preventable by the man each and every time and is at least 90 percent his mistake each and every time. If you do not understand that, then you do not understand the dynamics of sex. For example, the most popular form of BC is the condom, and it is worn by the man, controlled by the man, and it is the man's job to make sure its intact (obviously). The woman can do nothing to guard against a mistake with a condom if that is the only BC used. The pill takes planning and constant use; a lot of work and hormone affecting drug use whereas the condom is simple. When a woman messes up her pill schedule, that is one of the few times its her fault.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are the result of a man's mistake. This is not women's lib. This is reality. And blaming the woman for having sex is like blaming the person who got rear-ended in their car for the accident because they chose to drive that day! Unwanted pregnancies are easily preventable even when having sex, but the most and the best options for doing that are in the hands of the male. And abstinence is a lousy and unnecessary option if the man knows what he is doing. Its that simple.

Moderator: Back on topic please. Comments that do not refer to President Obama's search for a Supreme Court nominee will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama seeks someone who backs women's rights. How about someone who just backs sense and reality with regard to everyone's rights.

SuperLib: I'm guessing that a man can't go into a paternity hearing and say, "her body, her choice" and walk out the door.

And that just goes to show where making this about women's rights can lead you astray. Next we ask "What about men's rights?" and it becomes a bitter argument. Any man who does not want a child can avoid causing a pregnancy with complete ease. A woman can not even force him to make her pregnant! The most tricky thing she can do is fish the condom out of the trash, so flush it gentlemen. But that is a very rare thing. Usually, it all started with her at the mercy of his diligence, so fair enough it ends with him at the mercy of her decision to either clean up his mess or let it become a baby. Again, this is not women's lib. Its the way things are. You don't want a baby? Bag it and check it every couple minutes ESPECIALLY right before the moment of truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This action is a rather cruel joke since most of our rights have been taken away already.

-even complaining about the Gov or even a foodstuff could land you in jail. In fact you can be held indefinately for any reason. If people were serious about eugenics they would look into the unhealthy un-natural food conditions in the US which kills far more.

=at this point abortion is the least of our worries and I wouldn't blame a parent for making that decision in the society we have right now. -Almost unthinkable that it has come to this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank you SuperLib. It's nice to see someone else notice the double standard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Would it be, could it be Hillary Clinton?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hillary would be great but she may run for President in 2016 after Obama finishes his second term.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Giving women legal rights to choose what to do with their own bodies? That's outrageous, even in the 21st century. I expect our GOP and conservative friends to be dead against this.

Yes and no. I'm Pro-Life myself, but its a tough issue. I know a lot of Pro-Choice people, and I don't think less of anyone for being on the opposite side of the argument. The question of when should anyone have the right to tell a person what to do with their bodies is not an easy one. For myself, it comes down to 2 things. Responsibility, and Justice.

Responsibility is very simple. If a woman is pregnant, it is almost always because she chose not to use birth control. If this is the case, then her being pregnant is her own fault. Actions have consequences. Abortion is merely a way to try to avoid those consequences. There are obviously exceptions, and in those cases, I am very much in favor of allowing the girl to make the call. But in normal circumstances, you screw up, you deal. If nothing else, give the child up for adoption. I believe that having made the choice to have unprotected sex, and risk pregnancy, your choice should not abrogate the choice of the unborn child to live.

My second reason is a lot more tentative. I dislike double standards. The idea that a unborn child is not a person until it comes out of the womans body, and then is somehow magically a person, to me is just wrong. I ask myself this question. Women who choose not to abort, have the kid, and then drown it in a washroom, are they really all that different from those who chose to abort the child? Because they didn't get to the doctor in time to qualify for an unpenalized killing? And then theres the issue brought up earlier, if a man kicks a woman and terminates her pregnancy that way, its second degree murder. Yet this is an unborn child. Its got to be one way or the other. Either the child deserves protection when in the womb, from anyone, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, why should the dividing line be the moment the infant leaves the birth canal? And as SuperLib pointed out, if the woman chooses to have the kid, shouldn't the father get a say, why is his role just child support?

As I said, the issue is a lot more grey. After thinking all this over, I have come to the decision I'm Pro-Life. Let the child be born, give it up for adoption if the mother can't handle it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard-- I'm sorry, but while I understand your points, I cannot possibly agree. This is not me saying "what about men's rights". Actually by reading your comment about how men are the ones almost wholly responsible and women are just passively letting themselves get knocked up just makes me wonder if you don't give a lot of women more credit than that. I am not "blaming the women for having sex". If that was the case, then men shouldn't have sex either and everyone should just sit on their hands and try not to think about it. I am simply pointing out that to have sex, choices are made, by BOTH parties. The man wears the condom, yes. But the woman ALSO knows she should take precautions as well, and if you are going to be sexually active, male or female, then you would know in these days and times that relying on a condom you bought as an afterthought at the gas station is not always going to be enough.

Actually, that is why I am pro-education rather than anti- anything-- Obama, the government, somebody needs to re-educate the masses. Because people don't know how easy it is for something to go wrong, despite the results of such mishaps being so common. In which case we can't really throw blame around here-- it's mostly a matter of ignorance and unfortunate circumstances. But in cases where the couple has been educated (because again, times are changing), I'm not going to say the woman has no control over the situation or doesn't know the risks. Even then, I still wouldn't call it anyone's mistake. Because sometimes, things just don't go the way we plan.

...Back to abortion then, I still don't think the choice should be anyone elses but the people involved in creating that life or the person who is going to be giving birth to it. The government should have NO SAY. And yet I am still Pro-Life, because I believe a fetus is a person, no matter what.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hillary was almost disbarred for ethical violations during the W'gate proceedings, where, like a true progressive, she wanted Nixon to be stripped of his constitutional rights.

Obama will be turfed out in 2012 so I can only guess the author of "Hillary would be great but she may run for President in 2016 after Obama finishes his second term" apparently believes Obama can nominate himself to the Supreme Court for a four-year term (no such thing in America, but maybe in some other country).

Even if that were possible Obama is disqualified by virtue of the fact that like his wife he forfeited his license to practice law. The media is curiously uninterested in this but it may well come out if he goes ahead and appoints another Sotomayor or a loopy, crypto-Marxist Van Jones type. Should be interesting.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama seeks Supreme Court nominee who backs women's rights

Biased and false headline.

Should be Obama seeks Supreme Court nominee who supports abortion (not a criticism, just the truth)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with you 100% manfromamerica

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites