Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why I Voted For Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Fetuses are not deemed persons during the first trimester according to Roe v Wade, which is when the vast majority of abortions are performed. This is also the position of the majority of the US population (including Evangelicals 50 years ago) who support R v W.
    We've been here before, Tassman --- anybody with half a brain knows that it's a human baby inside the woman's body. Cowardly hiding behind terminology does not change that.

    Also, the woman has rights too, which you are blithely ignoring.
    I'm not "blithely" ignoring anything, you goofus. If anybody is ignoring anything, it's you and your culture of death allies ignoring that the living being has ZERO rights, according to the abortion industry.

    OTOH capital punishment DOES wantonly kill actual, sentient persons and there can be no justification for this in a civilized society.
    I'm not a vocal advocate of capital punishment, but what you're "blithely" ignoring is that fact that the condemned person has actually been condemned after due process - something not afforded the baby.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Fetuses are not deemed persons during the first trimester according to Roe v Wade, which is when the vast majority of abortions are performed. This is also the position of the majority of the US population (including Evangelicals 50 years ago) who support R v W.
      I think a lot of that comes from the fact people are ignorant about exactly what Roe v. Wade decided. (I also expect many are ignorant of the legal matters, because as I have noted before, Roe v. Wade was so poorly reasoned that even people who were pro-choice decried its decision as the Supreme Court just making up a constitutional right and correctly comparing it to the much-derided Lochner era).

      Of course, if so many people are supposedly in favor of abortion rights, then there's no need for Roe v. Wade. Just overturn it and then enact those things into law, problem solved. Almost no one cares about an overturn of Buck v. Bell because the sterilization laws that were upheld in that decision have all been repealed.

      Also, the woman has rights too, which you are blithely ignoring.
      The "constitutional right" of the woman to get an abortion was just as made up as the "right to contract" that caused the Supreme Court to claim that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional (see earlier link). To be consistent, anyone who believes Roe v. Wade was correctly decided must agree that all minimum wage laws, maximum work hour laws, child labor laws, and all the rest of such laws are unconstitutional, because both of these claims are both equally supported by the constitution.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        So, in your view, its OK to kill human beings once they're outside the womb?
        Only if they turn into liberals or atheists.

        (I chose to prefer Prov. 26:5 over 26:4.)
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Nationalist.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post



          I'm not a vocal advocate of capital punishment, but what you're "blithely" ignoring is that fact that the condemned person has actually been condemned after due process - something not afforded the baby.
          Again, fetuses are not deemed 'persons' during the first trimester according to Roe v Wade, which is when the vast majority of abortions are performed. So, “due process” is a meaningless concept. It is the rights of the woman that must be taken into account is these instances.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post

            Of course, if so many people are supposedly in favor of abortion rights, then there's no need for Roe v. Wade. Just overturn it and then enact those things into law, problem solved.
            There’s no problem. Roe v Wade already addresses the needs of the majority regarding abortion rights and protects them from a total abortion ban as demanded by some.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Again,
              Stating the same crap over and over does not make it truer, Tassy.

              fetuses are not deemed 'persons' ...
              "Personhood" is a philosophical term. Trust the science, Tass.

              When an egg and a sperm unite, a new unique being is created with its very own DNA. What type of being is it? Obviously, it's a HUMAN BEING.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                There’s no problem. Roe v Wade already addresses the needs...
                You keep citing Roe V Wade like it's sacred. (No doubt, to you, it is)

                Roe V Wade was a terribly flawed decision.

                Honest pro-choicers admit Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision

                Today, President Obama sang the praises of Roe v. Wade. On one level, that's not surprising -- he's the most pro-choice President ever. But Obama is also a Harvard Law School alumnus, and he used to teach Constitutional law, and so you would think he would see Roe for the embarassing bit of ideologically motivated junk it is.

                Lest you think I'm just showing my bias, below is a collection of pro-choice scholars and journalists slamming the decision:

                Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.

                “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”

                “The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law,” 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).

                Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

                “ Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

                North Carolina Law Review, 1985

                Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.

                “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”
                ….

                “What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”

                “ The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them,” FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002

                “[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

                “ Liberals, Don’t Make Her an Icon” Washington Post July 10, 2003.


                William Saletan — Slate columnist who left the GOP 2004 because it was too pro-life.

                “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”

                “ Unbecoming Justice Blackmun,” Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.


                John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School

                Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
                ….

                “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

                “The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” 82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).


                Benjamin Wittes — Washington Post

                Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.”

                “ Letting Go of Roe,” The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.


                Richard Cohen — Washington Post

                “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.”
                ….

                “As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is.

                “If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe , with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers.
                ….

                Roe “is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.”
                ….

                “Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well.”

                “ Support Choice, Not Roe” Washington Post, October 19, 2005.


                Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School

                Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case.”

                Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford) 2001, p. 194.


                Got that, Tass? HONEST Pro-choicers...
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  You keep citing Roe V Wade like it's sacred. (No doubt, to you, it is)
                  No. I “keep citing Roe V Wade” because it’s the Law of the Land, which the anti-abortionists want to overturn.

                  Roe V Wade was a terribly flawed decision.
                  In the opinion of some, not the majority.

                  “77 percent say Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade”

                  https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...old-roe-v-wade
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                    When an egg and a sperm unite, a new unique being is created with its very own DNA. What type of being is it?
                    The issue is when this “new unique being” attains all the rights and protections of a person. It is only relatively recently (50 years in the case of the SBC) that some want to bestow them from the moment of conception.

                    The generally accepted view today is that these rights apply from the viability of the fetus, i.e. up to 24 weeks. Although, the vast majority of abortions are performed during the first trimester…well before viability. In ancient times they were bestowed on the person when they emerged from the womb, e.g. in the Judeo/Christian tradition, although there were variations of doctrine in this too.

                    https://momentmag.com/wp-content/upl...life-begin.pdf

                    Obviously, it's a HUMAN BEING.
                    Well, it’s not going to be a frog is it?
                    Last edited by Tassman; 10-11-2019, 01:21 AM.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      No. I “keep citing Roe V Wade” because it’s the Law of the Land, which the anti-abortionists want to overturn.
                      Plessy v. Ferguson was also law of the land, which the anti-segregationists wanted to overturn.

                      Also, I would argue that Plessy v. Ferguson, despite its deficiencies, had much backing in precedent and the text of the Constitution than Roe v. Wade did.

                      In the opinion of some, not the majority.

                      “77 percent say Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade”

                      https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...old-roe-v-wade
                      And how many of those people would be even able to say what the Supreme Court's supposed rationale for the decision was? Or don't really care about how good the rationale was and just want it because it supports their preferred social policy? A survey of people where most of them whose knowledge begins and ends with "Roe v. Wade made abortion legal" (without any knowledge of the specifics or the reasoning) doesn't mean anything at all as to the decision not being flawed.
                      Last edited by Terraceth; 10-11-2019, 01:51 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                        A survey of people where most of them whose knowledge begins and ends with "Roe v. Wade made abortion legal" (without any knowledge of the specifics or the reasoning) doesn't mean anything at all as to the decision not being flawed.
                        It is “flawed” only for those whose religious ideology opposes abortion.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          No. I “keep citing Roe V Wade” because it’s the Law of the Land, which the anti-abortionists want to overturn.
                          It became the law of the land because abortionists pushed activist judges to create "rights" that were not in the Constitution.
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            The issue is when this “new unique being” attains all the rights and protections of a person.
                            In your opinion. But you have quite a track record of being wrong. Stop being such a science denier!
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              It is “flawed” only for those whose religious ideology opposes abortion.
                              “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

                              Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
                              North Carolina Law Review, 1985
                              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

                                Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
                                North Carolina Law Review, 1985
                                Yet she still believed it to be an acceptable judicial decision.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 08:17 AM
                                1 response
                                27 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
                                20 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
                                10 responses
                                98 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
                                6 responses
                                64 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                                62 responses
                                472 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Watermelon  
                                Working...
                                X