WARNING: This topic is about abortion.  I realize this is a sensitive topic that inflames passions on all sides of the issue.  However, I want no name calling or rudeness in this thread.  If you can't objectively stick to the topic, don't post here.

Bear with me, some of this might seem sort of "stream of consciousness".

With all of the SCOTUS stuff in the news recently, I've been doing a bit of reading on abortion.  Yes, I know there are hundreds of other issues that are of equal or greater importance, but I wanted to be more familiar with the nuances of Roe.  So, the long and short of it is, if Roe is overturned, abortion reverts to a states rights issue.  As things sit right now, there are a few states where it would automatically be outlawed, a few states where it would automatically be guaranteed, and the rest are "up for grabs".  So, my first question to you all is, do you think that abortion should be protected/outlawed at the national level, or at the state level?

Next, I went back and re-read the Bill of Rights.  Sure enough, privacy is not mentioned.  But, I did find the re-reading of the 10th amendment to be very interesting.  In summary, it says that any right/power not explicitly granted to the federal government belongs to the people and/or the states.  My next question is, since medical treatment of any kind is a private matter between you and your doctor, and the right to privacy is (by the reading of the 10th amendment) given to the state and/or people, isn't abortion (as a private medical issue) automatically protected at the federal constitutional level?

After that, the next question relates to enforcement and the slippery slope.  Let's say that abortion is outlawed in my state.  Concordantly, abortion clinics close their doors.  But, let's say my regular doctor decides that he will provide abortions to his patients who ask for them.  He's not opening a clinic, he's simply providing his patients a range of medical services.  How would the government go about finding out, in order to put both of us in jail, whether he provided one to me?  What would be the probable cause that would justify a warrant and subsequent intrusion into my medical records?  Here's where the slippery slope comes in.  Once any goverment is able to look at your medical records to determine if you're an offender of some sort, what's to stop them from looking into any other private part of your life (e.g. what books you read, what medicines you take, who you talk to, how you vote, etc.)?

Next is a political question.  I realize this is not the case any longer, but historically Republicans have been pro states rights, pro limited government, pro bill of rights, anti big government, anti government involvement in peoples' lives, anti social programs, etc.  Now, this is the same group of people (as a whole) who would like abortion to be outlawed altogether.  How can this particular group of people justify the intrusion of the federal government into the private lives of American citizens?  How can they justify the additional costs to the welfare system if they get thier way and have abortion completely outlawed everywhere?

Okay, I'm done for the moment...these are just some of the things that have popped into my head as I've been reading up on the issue.

You can thank TeraHammer for something, because I've got a question that will hopefully give rise to an intelligent conversation.  It's mostly for Demo, but anyone else is welcome to join in.  I am a registered Libertarian, and my beliefs fall in line with the party platform more than they don't.  Personally, I feel that welfare should be abolished.

The following quote is from the front page of the Libertatian Party website.

The proper source of aid to the poor is voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

Here's the question.  Are we putting more faith in the goodness of humanity than we ought to?  Put another way, if governmental aid were to end, and the tax dollars were returned to the individual, do you really think there would be a corresponding rise in private donations?

So, I've just got to ask what you guys think about the new nominee for SCOTUS.  I've got various question for you guys, answer all of them or none of them or whichever ones interest you.  Here they are, in no particular order.

1. Do you think this is cronyism?
2. Do you think she is a religious zealot?
3. Do you think she is underqualified?
    3a. If so, why?

Okay, so here's the deal.  Very soon I'll be receiving a brand new 3.6G Socket-T Prescott , 1M, 800MHz FSB (it's a P4, if all that other junk doesn't make sense).  Please to be offering suggestions about the hardware that I should build around this processor.  The processor itself will scream, so I need hardware that can utilize all that power.  I'll be building the thing from the ground up.

Hey you!  I'm flying into San Jose at about noon on June 30th (Thursday).  Feel up to meeting me for lunch before I head to Monterey?

Hey guys, I need some help from you.  I've become a reseller for a domain registrar (and a bunch of other products).  I've created my templated store and now I need feedback.  If you've got some time, would you go to the site and either shoot me a PM (or post it here) with feedback.  What works for you, what doesn't, etc.?  Bear in mind that I'm fairly limited template wise, but I can mess with colors and images and some of the layout.  My site is http://www.thedomainsandmorestore.com.  Thanks in advance!

So, this is the first weekend in a very long time that it hasn't been rainy and nasty out.  So I'm sure you're asking, "What sucks about that?"  The answser is, I'm sicker than a dog.  My head is about to explode, my chest is on fire, coughing convulsively, body aches all over.

So, how often is it that you are able to say that you're proud of the guy (or guys, or woman, etc.) who owns the company you work for.  In my experience it's not that often.  It happened for me today.  The owner of the company I work for donated $250,000 to one of the tsunami aid funds.  I gotta say that I am absolutely impressed by and proud of his benevolence.  It's not often that people "put their money where their mouth is", but he sure as hell did.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/23/pledge.undergod.ap/index.html

http://http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/23/hamilton.pledge/index.html
Before you lock the thread cat, I was kidding about this being a sequel of the previous thread.  

On a serious note, the first article is about the House passing the Pledge Protection Act.  In summary, the article says that, if passed, the act would remove challenges to the pledge from federal jurisdiction and put said challenges at the state level.  Theoretically, there could then be 50 different interpretations of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  

The second article is an opinion about the House passing the act.  It indicates, among other things, that Congress passing this amounts to Congress attempting remove the checks and balances built into the Constitution by the framers.

Opinions?  Ideas?  Thoughts?

Edited: Forgot to include the second link.

I saw this article a few weeks ago and I was wondering what you guys thought of it.  More interesting than the article was the poll that went along with it.  The vast majority of nearly 200,000 people agreed with Cosby.  Thoughts?  Feelings?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/01/cosby.comments.ap/