US Supreme Court rejects abortion clinic 'buffer zones'

[wwest5829]

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

Almost no one in America would disagree with you on that. I know that I wouldn't. I think it is healthy babies being aborted that the majority of the pro-life folks object to.

Wish my view was the same but I had my working life in a very conservative region. Folks were rather absolute in their religious views. Those trying to deny access to the clinics were not asking the reason, just preaching that is was wrong (according to their religious view). It is scary in the USA with the shift so far to the right by a sizeable number of people influencing the Republican Party through the Tea Party challenge.

[Chicog]

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

I don't know. In a country with the world's 3 largest population, a lot of things are going to happen, both good and bad.

It's just that the liberal - commie - socialists like to sensationalize things which are statistically insignificant.

While nutcase religious conservatives talk about things like "legitimate rape"?

[chuckd]

I once read a headline, right to lifer shoots an abortionist dead. True or tabloid stuff?

I don't know. In a country with the world's 3 largest population, a lot of things are going to happen, both good and bad.

It's just that the liberal - commie - socialists like to sensationalize things which are statistically insignificant.

While nutcase religious conservatives talk about things like "legitimate rape"?

Akin was defeated in 2012, due largely to his remark. I do believe he is the only politician that has used the remark in the last few years.

[me313]

"Gang of 5?" I'm not familiar with that term. Are those the people killing babies inside these clinics? If so then I agree.

Couple of points I would like to make, especially for non-American readers so they do not think all Americans are nuts. I say this in general, not directed at deesquared.

1). Ironically, the Supreme Court itself is surrounded by a "protective zone" where, as a citizen I am not allowed to demonstrate. Another case of U.S. Legilstive, Judicial or Executive government branches excluding themselves from the regulations/laws they enforce.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

As an American, I thank you for your intelligent input to the discussion. I did not know there was a "buffer zone" surrounding the privacy and protection of the Supreme Court. Another point is that "freedom" of abortion rights for women who become pregnant but cannot take care of a child, is held in balance against the "freedom" of an unborn child who may be born into a situation of poverty and crime, abuse or neglect. The question of whether the life of the mother is less redeemable than that of a child she cannot support or take care of is at stake.. I am naming an extreme, a generalization that is broad and sweeping. Not that only affluent people should have children, but if a woman is not capable of taking care of children then the choice is hers. Abortion has probably been an historical practice throughout millennium. If we support endless wars which cause endless destruction of 3rd world people, why is the question of abortion more controversial than naming the victims of the wars we gladly participate in and pretend the carnage is only happening to our own troops, ignoring the lives of the "enemy" civilians who are dying in millions, right now all over the world? The question then in the minds of people is not the value of life, but who gets stuck in poverty, who gets blamed for "murder" in a war-mongering society. In America alone there are areas which resemble war zones, which these children will be born into.

[puck2]

+1

"Gang of 5?" I'm not familiar with that term. Are those the people killing babies inside these clinics? If so then I agree.

Couple of points I would like to make, especially for non-American readers so they do not think all Americans are nuts. I say this in general, not directed at deesquared.

1). Ironically, the Supreme Court itself is surrounded by a "protective zone" where, as a citizen I am not allowed to demonstrate. Another case of U.S. Legilstive, Judicial or Executive government branches excluding themselves from the regulations/laws they enforce.

2). As to "killing babies". If my wife and I find out through medical testing that a being will be born with birth defects, it is not anyone else's religious beliefs that should dictate to us that we must bear the emotional/psychological/financial burden. Nor, I would say, should it be forced for others to bear that burden.

This isn't about a right to abortion, nor was that addressed or threatened. It isn't about protection of the Supreme Court.

It's about free speech and the right of the people to assemble. Those are constitutional rights. The people continue to re-affirm their constitutional rights.

Disagree. Your rights go as far as my nose. When you block or inhibit my right to free access, you have crossed the line. The demonstrators at the clinics were harassing those seeking free access. That is why the protective zones were established. Let us see what now happens at the clinics...again by those who feel their religious beliefs have a right to dictate to others.

The written LAW ist nothing but rules for the people living in a state, made by the legislative and controled by the judges.These rules and values are based on special criterias like culture, religion (hm, hm...), history and so on.

These criterias show already that law and justice must not be congruent. Many times they are opposed to each other, specially if you compare US law and justice against Islamic, European or Assian understanding of law and justice. Examples? There are surely millions of that kind as for example blasphemy, lese majeste, gun rights, abortion .... .

But even in the same state law and justice don't match each other. In the US some states have harsh rules against abortion, some not. The law = rules are not the same with the result abortion in the X-State is not the same as in the Y-State. And this opposing rules are reflected here in this thread. This is as a Soccer team is playing against an American football team. By which rules? A football fan will say there wasn't any foul, a soccer fan would say yes. All are getting confused and aggressive. The same here on TV.

And what about JUSTICE?

In the same state where especially the Reps are so furious with the abortion right ("killing" life) they consist of their right to kill somebody with their gun if entering their garden at night. This implicates they have the dubious right to be their own judge. But they deny that the pregnant woman has her own right.

Disgraceful.

[Ulysses G.]

In the same state where especially the Reps are so furious with the abortion right ("killing" life) they consist of their right to kill somebody with their gun if entering their garden at night. This implicates they have the dubious right to be their own judge. But they deny that the pregnant woman has her own right.

Disgraceful.

You compare the right to self defense with killing unborn children? I am pretty confused about the abortion issue, but not as much as you are.