Will Anthony Kennedy’s replacement really end Roe v. Wade?

[Oceander]

The fact that there may be exceptions to the rule does not strengthen your argument.

It demonstrates that the statement that marriage was the fixit for everything is flatly wrong, to the point of surreality. 

In point of fact, the liberalization of divorce laws was typically motivated by the obvious observation that locking people into failed marriages caused a hell of a lot more problems than simply dissolving those marriages. 

[roamer_1]

It’s still not relevant to the question of whether it’s ok for the State to force a woman to reproduce.

The reproduction was entered into willingly. It is the fruit thereof which is on point.

[Sanguine]

The Constitution is silent regarding cellphones and computers, too, so they can be searched and seized without having to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

You've forgotten the Fourth Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Bigun]

How is a phone call, transmitted over equipment belonging to an independent third party, any of the above?

And, to be pedantic, none of those terms is spelled like “computer” or “cellphone”, so clearly interpretation by a court is necessary in order to get to the result you want.

You are being purposefully obtuse and I have  no more time to waste today.  You lose councilor.

[Oceander]

The reproduction was entered into willingly. It is the fruit thereof which is on point.

That is still not relevant to the question whether it’s acceptable to turn a woman into a baby-making slave. 

Just because allegedly bad things happen to one party to a transaction does not justify doing even worse things to the other party to the same transaction. 

[roamer_1]

Maybe you don’t, but logically there is very little difference.  If you can use a gun on someone you let into your house because now he’s threatening to live there for the next nine months and demanding that you feed him, clothe him, and serve him hand in foot, then a woman has the right to abort a baby who is doing the same to her, even if she initially “invited” the situation by having sex.

Then a man likewise has the ability to reject fiduciary responsibility for an unwanted woman and child living in the midst of his treasury.

[Sanguine]

It demonstrates that the statement that marriage was the fixit for everything is flatly wrong, to the point of surreality. 

In point of fact, the liberalization of divorce laws was typically motivated by the obvious observation that locking people into failed marriages caused a hell of a lot more problems than simply dissolving those marriages.

But no one is claiming it is the fixit for everything.  If you have to set up strawmen, you need to look at the value of your argument.

[Oceander]

You are being purposefully obtuse and I have  no more time to waste today.  You lose councilor.

No, I am making a point, which you do not wish to accept because it undercuts your entire argument: the Constitution, and law generally, almost always require interpretation when being applied to all but the simplest of facts. 

It does not take any interpretation to conclude that the police cannot rifle through a person’s private diary, written on paper, under the Fourth Amendment.  It takes a great deal of interpretation to conclude that the cops cannot hook onto electric wires owned by an independent third party, record the signals passing through those wires, and convert them into sound waves to hear what one person is saying to another through the phone system.

[Cyber Liberty]

That is still not relevant to the question whether it’s acceptable to turn a woman into a baby-making slave. 

Just because allegedly bad things happen to one party to a transaction does not justify doing even worse things to the other party to the same transaction.

I appreciate your making the argument for me about a male being forced into becoming an income-producing slave.

[Oceander]

But no one is claiming it is the fixit for everything.  If you have to set up strawmen, you need to look at the value of your argument.

First, yes, some have claimed that it is the fixit for everything.  Second, if it isn’t, then it is clearly irrelevant to the question of whether the State can turn women into baby factories against their will.

[Bigun]

No, I am making a point, which you do not wish to accept because it undercuts your entire argument: the Constitution, and law generally, almost always require interpretation when being applied to all but the simplest of facts. 

It does not take any interpretation to conclude that the police cannot rifle through a person’s private diary, written on paper, under the Fourth Amendment.  It takes a great deal of interpretation to conclude that the cops cannot hook onto electric wires owned by an independent third party, record the signals passing through those wires, and convert them into sound waves to hear what one person is saying to another through the phone system.

Except for the fact that there are laws, properly passed by the legislature and signed by the executive, that protect those communications you might have a point.

[Oceander]

I appreciate your making the argument for me about a male being forced into becoming an income-producing slave.

Never made that argument.  Beyond that, there is no equivalence to a woman being forced to have a child she does not want and a man being forced to pay support for a child he does not want to pay for.  If the woman is allowed to abort, then there is no resulting child and the burdens and expense of raising that child are not borne by anyone.   If the man is allowed to refuse his child support obligations, the child doesn’t go away and someone else must now shoulder the expenses that the man should have been paying.  Since the expenses don’t go away, it’s only fair to impose them on him.

[Oceander]

Except for the fact that there are laws, properly passed by the legislature and signed by the executive, that protect those communications you might have a point.

My how you squirm.  Enacted legislation can be easily enough repealed, so that is neither here nor there, and ordinary legislation cannot amend the Constitution, so if telephone calls are protected by the Fourth Amendment, then it can only be because the amendment has been interpreted to cover them. 

[Bigun]

I appreciate your making the argument for me about a male being forced into becoming an income-producing slave.

As far as I'm aware there is no law that requires anyone of either sex to participate in the activity that produces new human beings.  It's voluntary on both sides in most cases.

[roamer_1]

That is still not relevant to the question whether it’s acceptable to turn a woman into a baby-making slave. 

You presume the sex act to be separate from the result. It is not. The two are insoluble. Reproduction is necessarily the function of the act. The 'fun' part is incidental. Which is why sex with a whore is a paltry thing in comparison to hearth and home... In effect, throwing away the gift and playing with the box it came in.

Just because allegedly bad things happen to one party to a transaction does not justify doing even worse things to the other party to the same transaction.

Even worse? Forcing a woman to bear a child for 9 months is worse than extracting a house payment from a man throughout his productive lifetime?

[Oceander]

You presume the sex act to be separate from the result. It is not. The two are insoluble. Reproduction is necessarily the function of the act. The 'fun' part is incidental. Which is why sex with a whore is a paltry thing in comparison to hearth and home... In effect, throwing away the gift and playing with the box it came in.

Even worse? Forcing a woman to bear a child for 9 months is worse than extracting a house payment from a man throughout his productive lifetime?

I’m sorry you feel you got a raw deal out of the child support order; perhaps if you’d had a better lawyer .....

[Cyber Liberty]

Never made that argument.  Beyond that, there is no equivalence to a woman being forced to have a child she does not want and a man being forced to pay support for a child he does not want to pay for.  If the woman is allowed to abort, then there is no resulting child and the burdens and expense of raising that child are not borne by anyone.   If the man is allowed to refuse his child support obligations, the child doesn’t go away and someone else must now shoulder the expenses that the man should have been paying.  Since the expenses don’t go away, it’s only fair to impose them on him.

Actually you made that argument for me without meaning to.

The argument can also be made the man should be able to force the woman to have an abortion, if we want to maintain equivalence with her ability to force the man into financial servitude.

[Oceander]

Actually you made that argument for me without meaning to.

The argument can also be made the man should be able to force the woman to have an abortion, if we want to maintain equivalence with her ability to force the man into financial servitude.

No, we cannot, because that is allowing the man to violate another person’s bodily integrity, which isn’t even in the same galaxy when compared to a mere financial obligation. 

[roamer_1]

It demonstrates that the statement that marriage was the fixit for everything is flatly wrong, to the point of surreality. 

In point of fact, the liberalization of divorce laws was typically motivated by the obvious observation that locking people into failed marriages caused a hell of a lot more problems than simply dissolving those marriages.

In fact, the opposite has proved true. Children from a two parent family (and an intact greater family) have a much greater advantage toward success. 

[roamer_1]

But no one is claiming it is the fixit for everything.  If you have to set up strawmen, you need to look at the value of your argument.

YEP.

[Oceander]

In fact, the opposite has proved true. Children from a two parent family (and an intact greater family) have a much greater advantage toward success. 

Does that mean that we should simply kill off all children who don’t have two parents?

And while they certainly applies in the abstract, there are plenty of families where it is not true.  And for those families, your vision of marriage would simply be a condemnation. 

[XenaLee]

But that requires the courts to interpret the Constitution, and to expand it, or not, to fit new circumstances.  However, that is what is derided here as judicial activism, which is supposedly judicial tyranny.   One cannot have it both ways.

You really don't seem to get it.   The judicial tyranny comes in when rogue leftist/activist judges fail to adhere TO the US Constitution, but instead rule according to their own leftist biases and ideals.  You keep saying that "can't have it both ways".... but you are misrepresenting (or misunderstanding?) the intent of those of us that insist on adhering to the Constitution vs. having it interpreted with a leftist slant. 

A perfect example of such tyranny and interpretative bias would be when Justice Roberts saved ObamaCare by declaring (single-handedly, mind you) that the mandatory fee the Democrats had been insisting it was.... was instead a "tax" (which the Democrats had vehemently denied it being).  THAT is what we here are advocating against.... ie more of the same judicial activism working against the Constitution.

[Bigun]

You really don't seem to get it.   The judicial tyranny comes in when rogue leftist/activist judges fail to adhere TO the US Constitution, but instead rule according to their own leftist biases and ideals.  You keep saying that "can't have it both ways".... but you are misrepresenting (or misunderstanding?) the intent of those of us that insist on adhering to the Constitution vs. having it interpreted with a leftist slant. 

A perfect example of such tyranny and interpretative bias would be when Justice Roberts saved ObamaCare by declaring (single-handedly, mind you) that the mandatory fee the Democrats had been insisting it was.... was instead a "tax" (which the Democrats had vehemently denied it being).  THAT is what we here are advocating against.... ie more of the same judicial activism working against the Constitution.

@XenaLee

Exactly!  That and making things up out of whole cloth.  Roe for one example.

[Oceander]

You really don't seem to get it.   The judicial tyranny comes in when rogue leftist/activist judges fail to adhere TO the US Constitution, but instead rule according to their own leftist biases and ideals.  You keep saying that "can't have it both ways".... but you are misrepresenting (or misunderstanding?) the intent of those of us that insist on adhering to the Constitution vs. having it interpreted with a leftist slant. 

A perfect example of such tyranny and interpretative bias would be when Justice Roberts saved ObamaCare by declaring (single-handedly, mind you) that the mandatory fee the Democrats had been insisting it was.... was instead a "tax" (which the Democrats had vehemently denied it being).  THAT is what we here are advocating against.... ie more of the same judicial activism working against the Constitution.

Oh I get it perfectly.  If you don’t subjectively like the result, it’s “judicial tyranny” and if you do subjectively like the result, it’s “fidelity to the Constitution”.  That’s also known as hypocrisy. 

[Bigun]

Oh I get it perfectly.  If you don’t subjectively like the result, it’s “judicial tyranny” and if you do subjectively like the result, it’s “fidelity to the Constitution”.  That’s also known as hypocrisy.

Bovine fecal matter!