10/9    Remember Bush's Dred Scott reference during the second prez debate?
        I thought it was just another malapropism. Turns out it was Bush's
        secret handshake to pro-lifers, who believe they are the new
        abolitionists: as the Dred Scott case was to slavery, so Roe vs.
        Wade is to abortion (so they believe). Holy fuck: the president
        said on national TV that if re-elected, he will make abortion
        illegal by appointing Supreme Court justices who will overturn
        Roe vs. Wade. Now, since most CSUA members are men, most of
        whom don't fully appreciate that the simplest and crudest way to
        control women is to control their bodies, let me repeat: HOLY FUCK!
        \_ WTF?  Dred Scott is a secret handshake protocol from the elders
           of zion and elvis transmitted to their bigfoot warriors on earth
           who are waiting to take over the chocolate factories around the
           world when GWB sends the signal?  You're a fucking nutcake.
           \_ Face facts: apart from secretly transporting Jews out of Nazi
              Europe in WWII, there is no holier historical cause greater
              in the eyes of the public than the Abolitionists. No one likes
              to see themselves as the villains, so anti-abortionists see
              themselves as being the new Abolitionists, saving fetuses from
              the clutches of corrupt and liberal mothers on an Underground
              Railroad of bombed abortion clinics and John Brown-like
              assassinations of pro-choice doctors.  Bush tapped into that
              belief by referring to Dred Scott.
        \_ Indeed, Bush is definitely a right-wing pro-lifer. Being
           a Malthusian I whole-heartedly am pro-abortion. However, how
           does one "make abortion illegal" through loading the court
           with conservative judges? It would violate stare decisis.
           An easier method of making abortion illegal would be to pass
           a constitutional amendment.
           \_ Wow, there are Malthusians in the 21st century?  You really
              aren't kidding?  Heehee!  That's so awesome and quaint!
              Are you a Green too, by any chance?  Malthusians and Greens
              are two great tastes that taste great together.  -- ilyas
                \_ What's the political philosophy that advocates mandatory
                   ex post facto abortions for the stupid?  -John
                \_ Malthus was correct -- See Easter Island.  He just didn't
                   know about fossil fuels artificially (and temporarily)
                   extending the max population of humans.  At the current
                   rate, we will have 250 billion people in 100 years, that's
                   impossible to sustain, so nature will control our numbers.
           \_ Heh -- you obviously don't know very much about how the law
              works.
              \_ On the contrary, I know very well how the law works. Care
                 to explain how it is easier to overturn a previous decision
                 than to make a constitutional amendment? Dred Scott wasn't
                 techically overturned. Without a proper writ of cersiarori
                 it would be difficult to "overturn" a previous decision.
                 And you couldn't flippantly bring a case to court challenging
                 the legality of abortion. Since it is legal you can't
                 bring a suit to federal court for someone having one. Anyone
                 with a semester of CivPro would tell you that would be
                 a failure to state an action. It's obvious that YOU don't
                 know much about the law, nitwit.
                 \_ Your reading comprehension also seems to be severely
                    lacking.  Train harder, grasshopper.
                    \_ Your lack of substance is rather shocking, try harder
                       trollboy.
                       \_ You're shocked by lack of substance on motd?  Now
                          I have reason to doubt your intelligence.  Poor boy.
                 \_ The point is not the overturn of Roe v. Wade but decisions
                    made on other cases that would render Roe v. Wade
                    meaningless.  If the current Partial Birth Abortion issue
                    were decided by conservative justices, they could very
                    effectively lay the groundwork for determining that
                    all abortion procedures are barbaric, cruel, and
                    murderous; this would make it easier to pass legislation
                    banning all of the current surgical abortion procedures.
                    Would abortion be illegal?  Of course not; you just can't
                    have one based on the current technology.
                    \_ Yes, understood, all very fine and all. In other words
                       the op was either very misiinformed or lazy or both
                       in his assertion. The point is that overturning
                       Roe v. Wade would require both legislation of some
                       sort and willing jurists, and one shouldn't merely
                       go about gesticulating about the end of the world
                       without some comprehension of the facts.
                       \_ The Pres. supports the current PBA legislation.
                          The USSC hasn't decided on the issue yet.  If
                          four of the justices retire, and that set does not
                          include Thomas and Scalia, and Bush is allowed to
                          install four conservative judges before the issue
                          is decided, then the groundwork mentioned above
                          will be laid.  The op is saying that Bush is
                          using language designed to inform anti-abortionists
                          that he is planning to do exactly this.  The only
                          thing the op made a mistake on is assuming that
                          the Pres. wouldn't dare make a position like this
                          public.  The rest of us knew that already.
        \_ Roe was among the worst USSC decisions ever.  It has zero
           \- which other decisions would you
              put in that elite group? --psb
           Consitutional basis and most court observers, from both political
           sides, found it completely absurd.  In fact, Roe is a good
           example of what the Court was originally designed to guard
           against.
           \_ Yawn.
           \_ Noise: 99%. Signal: 1% (you spelled Constitutional correctly).
              Would you like to try again with more substance or a URL?
              \_ Do you have *any* idea what they based the decision on?  I
                 know because I read it but you wouldn't believe me if I told
                 you.  Go read the decision.  It is truly ridiculous and
                 very bad law.  I *very firmly* believe in abortion rights,
                 but basing them on something so weak is down right stupid
                 and begging to have them taken away later when the USSC
                 gets a clue or enough of the country figures it out and
                 puts a constitutional ban on it.
                 \_ The constitutional basis of RvW *is* kind of a stretch.  I
                    could see them saying you can't force a patient or doctor
                    to answer any question about a suspected abortion, but to
                    say making the procedure illegal violates privacy is
                    really grasping.  Nevertheless, I (and most Americans)
                    want to preserve the status quo. -!pp
        \_ Abortion, as exists today, is a euphemism for eugenics.  The
           vaulted feminist Sanger, like many (most?) leftist
           heroes, was an inveterate racist.
           \_ Soooooo, the only fetuses being aborted are non-aryans?