And as far as I’m concerned, stay out of sexual reproductive choices. Aren’t conservatives supposed to be ANTI-government intervention?

Jay,

You will, of course, forgive those of us who view your views as a bit self-serving. You would have the government (i.e. the courts) “stay out of sexual reproductive choices” AFTER the Roe v. Wade decision which you favor? Is that the sort of “reasoning” you picked up in law school?

As for your “not pro death penalty” stance, that could do with a bit more of an explanation. How does a high rate of recidivism support an anti-death penalty position? The death penalty, or capital punishment, is called a “punishment” or a “penalty” for a reason. Because such was earned by the especially brutal or heinous nature of the crime. The idea that the intent of capital punishment is to discourage crime is a largely strawman argument from the left.

Wait… Your definition of “Liberal Insanity” Is allowing people to make their own decisions? LOL!!

I think someone missed the point.

Perhpas my question was unfair. However, my generalization is not disimilar to the broad generalizations that occur with relation to “liberal” though on this very board…every day.

Despite this, I’m now supposed to partition “conservatism” into relgious and non-religious?

Ok, perhaps I should have prefaced my question with this … “What is your stance on birth control, abortion, plan B and planned parenthood?”

And THEN I’ll ask again.

Jay,

Just out of curiosity, did you actually finish law school and pass the state bar exam?

Man, you guys are incredibly condescending. The “reasoning” you speak of is called “stare decisis.” The Courts have made their decision and interpreted the constitution in a specific way. We have substantive due process. We have for quite some time. There is settled constitutional law based upon it…lots of it.

Talk about condescending… or patronizing, as you prefer. I’m well aware of stare decisis (please note that Latin words or phrases are properly italicized) as the comment thread regarding Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent remarks makes clear. I’m also well aware that Plessy v. Ferguson is no longer the law of the land, nor is Bowers v. Hardwick, nor is Dred Scott v. Sanford, and that the ruling in U.S. v. Miller (1939) could well be expanded or perhaps overturned within the next year.

Roe v. Wade is obviously an agreeable outcome for those who favor abortion. Social policy to be applauded. But to suggest that “good” social policy makes for good law is patently nonsense. And to pronounce that decision somehow untouchable because of stare decisis is indeed disingenuous.

The “government” is the legislature.

Not in this country; it’s the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch.
BTW, Roe v Wade was not legislation; it was the judicial branch legislating, which they aren’t supposed to do, even according to your limited knowledge.

The “v” in Roe v Wade stands for versus, which is Latin for “against”, signifying it was a legal decision, not a legislative one. Duh.

Jay:

Each question you asked deserves a much longer forum than is available here, but here are some answers in their individual nutshells.

Birth control: Take it or don’t…free choice.

Abortion: I used to be more pro choice than I am now, but now I have to say that except in the cases of rape or incest I have to consider it wrong. Further, I have to take this stance: If you’re anti-death penalty and pro-abortion don’t even attempt to discuss the issue with me. oh, and Roe v. Wade is a farce based on a fallacy. Each state should make its own laws and the feds should butt out. Nuff said?

Plan B: I’m assuming you’re talking about the “morning after” pill. That’s a tar pit I haven’t thought through.

Planned parenthood: What aspect? Their lunatic fringe that thinks that a fouteen year old girl has the right to an abortion without telling her parents or just the regular mainstream lunatics who push the anti-abortion agenda while endorsing bad choices and bad behaviour?

Wait… Your definition of “Liberal Insanity” Is allowing people to make their own decisions? LOL!!

They may be horrible people, but no judge has the right to tell them not to have sex anymore unless they can be convicted and put behind bars.

Jay: Instead of attacking Christians over this, why not realize that the real solution to this problem is to lock up the druggie parents and adopt the children out to good homes? The parents are criminals, and deserve to be treated that way. If you let them out, you can’t restrict their freedom to procreate, can you?

These two adults should be deemed incapacitated because of their addiction to drugs (disability) makes them unable to effectively comprehend and communicate ever day decisions.
Their choice to use drugs blatantly displays they lack the ability to satisfy their own essential requirements for physical health, safety, or self-care.
Their personal well being is in jeopardy and emergent intervening is seriously called for. They should become a ward of the state and guardians should be appointed to oversee their daily well being.
Maybe the judge should have appointed herself as their legal guardian and this would have given her the right of deciding what is best for the … incapacitated drug users.
Just a thought, lol

One can have babies that test positive for cocaine and then not go to jail over it?

What’s wrong with this country? I thought this was all covered by child abuse laws.

Jay….

I don’t reconcile the two things at all. Evangelicals don’t speak for me. I’m having a hard time “reconciling” how you came up with a parallel between the two issues.

In this case the fact is that any kids these two have would have be raised more like feral cats than kids. And they’ve already had four (4) taken away. By the way, who do you think paid the hospital bill for the four already here, these two brain donors?

You did, if you pay taxes. And you’ll continue to pay for their “right” to procreate as long as they…procreate.

Bumper sticker – Buy Condoms Instead Of Crack, Dipshit

Jay asks Pilgrim to “reconcile” someone else’s position, So how, exactly, do you reconcile this stance with another quite popular evangelical conservative stance that birth control and other means of family control should be “banned?”

Is that what Pilgrim believes?

If not, then it’s an unfair question.