The Briefing Room
General Category => Health/Education => Life News => Topic started by: TomSea on June 29, 2018, 01:43:32 am
-
BlogsAbortion, Commentary, Politics - U.S. Thu Jun 28, 2018 - 5:50 pm EST
Will Anthony Kennedy’s replacement really end Roe v. Wade?
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 28, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Wednesday’s bombshell news that a pro-life president will finally get to replace the atrocious Anthony Kennedy with a Supreme Court justice committed to the Constitution has supercharged pro-life imaginations, and rightly so. After four decades and 60 million dead babies, overturning Roe v. Wade is long overdue.
But as we prepare for the fight of our political lives over President Donald Trump’s next nominee, it’s critical that pro-lifers keep in mind not only the pitfalls lurking in the confirmation process, but also the uncomfortable truth that the future justice might not be the one we have to worry about.
If there’s one thing that should be seared into every pro-lifer’s consciousness by now -- after pro-abortion GOP nominees Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, John Paul Stevens, or David Souter – it’s to never settle for “stealth nominees,†ostensibly-qualified jurists without a paper trail on hot-button issues that could invite controversy during confirmation hearings.
Read more at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/will-anthony-kennedys-replacement-really-end-roe-v.-wade (https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/will-anthony-kennedys-replacement-really-end-roe-v.-wade)
This is an emotional topic for many, let's hope people can discuss such subjects in a civil tone and without feeling the need to bash religion.
-
Roe v. Wade won't be overturned. Not if Trump nominates a conservative, at least. The decision, for better or for worse, has been the law of the land for over 40 years. Every woman in America of child bearing age has had the Constitutional right to choose whether or not to reproduce for her entire adult life.
Given that reality, overturning the decision would be the height of "activist judging", substituting the Justices' preferences for that of the peoples'.
What you probably will see, however, is greater latitude provided to state legislatures to restrict abortions consistent with the foundational right remaining intact. Such as, for example, abortion bans after 20 weeks. The situation will be something like that with the Second Amendment - a significant amount of regulation/restriction will be permitted. Think Heller, but in the abortion context. D.C. can't ban handguns because that would deny the fundamental right of self-defense in the home. But it could require licensure and registration. Similarly, Pennsylvania could ban abortion after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother, because for the first 20 weeks the woman had the meaningful ability to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy.
-
An interesting dichotomy is the degree of regulation of a Constitutional right demanded by liberals vs. conservatives. With respect to the Second Amendment, liberals want to regulate/restrict right up to the Constitutional line, while conservatives want the gun right to be freely exercisable as much as possible. Just the opposite for the abortion right - liberals will resist most all restrictions, while conservatives want to regulate/restrict right up to the Constitutional line.
-
Every woman in America of child bearing age has had the Constitutional right to choose whether or not to reproduce for her entire adult life.
Roe v. Wade does not protect a woman's right to choose whether or not to reproduce. It shields a woman from the consequences of how she exercises that choice. Her right to choose whether or not to reproduce can be freely exercised in the same way we argue that a man can exercise that right when we discuss financial responsibility for a child - don't have intercourse.
-
In a word: no.
-
An interesting dichotomy is the degree of regulation of a Constitutional right demanded by liberals vs. conservatives. With respect to the Second Amendment, liberals want to regulate/restrict right up to the Constitutional line, while conservatives want the gun right to be freely exercisable as much as possible. Just the opposite for the abortion right - liberals will resist most all restrictions, while conservatives want to regulate/restrict right up to the Constitutional line.
I suspect most people who call themselves "conservatives" want to outlaw abortion, not regulate up to a fictional Constitutional line. The Constitution makes no mention of abortion, reproduction, trimesters, or a "right to choose."
The dichotomy reflects a belief that owning a gun poses no threat to anyone, while abortion ends a human life. Personally I find that distinction absolutely clear and overwhelmingly compelling.
-
In a word: no.
Sorry to agree, but I do.
-
I suspect most people who call themselves "conservatives" want to outlaw abortion, not regulate up to a fictional Constitutional line. The Constitution makes no mention of abortion, reproduction, trimesters, or a "right to choose."
The dichotomy reflects a belief that owning a gun poses no threat to anyone, while abortion ends a human life. Personally I find that distinction absolutely clear and overwhelmingly compelling.
A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right. It doesn't matter if the right exists by reason of the plain text of the document, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. That's simply a fact, and the law.
What fascinates me is the attitude of both liberals and conservatives towards Constitutional rights. It's fundamentally hypocritical. Conservatives worship the gun right and despise the abortion right. Liberals view the abortion right as sacrosanct, and deem the gun right illegitimate. Conservatives fight the abortion right by seeking to regulate and restrict it right up the Constitutional line, but threaten to shoot peace officers if the state suggests they register their guns. Liberals adopt a similar hostile attitude regarding the gun right, and claim the sky is falling if the state so much as requires a mother-to-be to look at a pamphlet.
Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights. They exist to protect the rights of individuals vis a vis the state. Those of you who demand the right to keep your guns secretly hidden from prying government eyes ought to have sympathy with the notion that the State cannot demand a woman reproduce against her will.
But of course, you don't. Your rights are crucial. A woman's? Not so much. You say an abortion ends a human life. That is a moral perspective you are certainly entitled to. But it not the right of the State to impose it on others.
Yes, the gun right and the abortion right are regular themes of mine on this board. Only by understanding the position of the other side can we understand that ALL Constitutional rights are about protecting you and me, and the women in our lives too, against government tyranny.
-
A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right. It doesn't matter if the right exists by reason of the plain text of the document, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. That's simply a fact, and the law.
What fascinates me is the attitude of both liberals and conservatives towards Constitutional rights. It's fundamentally hypocritical. Conservatives worship the gun right and despise the abortion right. Liberals view the abortion right as sacrosanct, and deem the gun right illegitimate. Conservatives fight the abortion right by seeking to regulate and restrict it right up the Constitutional line, but threaten to shoot peace officers if the state suggests they register their guns. Liberals adopt a similar hostile attitude regarding the gun right, and claim the sky is falling if the state so much as requires a mother-to-be to look at a pamphlet.
Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights. They exist to protect the rights of individuals vis a vis the state. Those of you who demand the right to keep your guns secretly hidden from prying government eyes ought to have sympathy with the notion that the State cannot demand a woman reproduce against her will.
But of course, you don't. Your rights are crucial. A woman's? Not so much. You say an abortion ends a human life. That is a moral perspective you are certainly entitled to. But it not the right of the State to impose it on others.
Yes, the gun right and the abortion right are regular themes of mine on this board. Only by understanding the position of the other side can we understand that ALL Constitutional rights are about protecting you and me, and the women in our lives too, against government tyranny.
Abortion right? Claiming the constitutional right to commit murder is insane. Even if it is a matter of convenience.
-
Not without a constitutional amendment.
If we start overturning prior USSC decisions willy nilly that would create absolute chaos in the courts where decisions are overturned on a dime every few years.
-
Abortion right? Claiming the constitutional right to commit murder is insane. Even if it is a matter of convenience.
Murder? C'mon, that's your particular moral values in overdrive. During the first trimester, a fetus has no separate existence apart from the mother. At such time, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of individual conscience.
And you entitled to your moral values, including to hyperventilate by using the term "murder" But what you don't have is the right to demand the state to impose your moral values on others.
-
Abortions were legal before Roe V Wade. What Roe did was make "abortion on demand" legal. From there, it escalated to "make abortions affordable by excluding clinics from medical rules" and "invent a baby insecticide". The argument when abortion was legalized was "They will be rare because we have The Pill". What they didn't count on was "People are stupid".
-
While I don't think Roe v. Wade will be completely overturned, it is possible that they will at least allow the fetal heartbeat bills, like Iowa's, to stand based on biology and science. That alone would be a huge victory.
-
A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right. It doesn't matter if the right exists by reason of the plain text of the document, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. That's simply a fact, and the law.
What fascinates me is the attitude of both liberals and conservatives towards Constitutional rights. It's fundamentally hypocritical. Conservatives worship the gun right and despise the abortion right. Liberals view the abortion right as sacrosanct, and deem the gun right illegitimate. Conservatives fight the abortion right by seeking to regulate and restrict it right up the Constitutional line, but threaten to shoot peace officers if the state suggests they register their guns. Liberals adopt a similar hostile attitude regarding the gun right, and claim the sky is falling if the state so much as requires a mother-to-be to look at a pamphlet.
Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights. They exist to protect the rights of individuals vis a vis the state. Those of you who demand the right to keep your guns secretly hidden from prying government eyes ought to have sympathy with the notion that the State cannot demand a woman reproduce against her will.
But of course, you don't. Your rights are crucial. A woman's? Not so much. You say an abortion ends a human life. That is a moral perspective you are certainly entitled to. But it not the right of the State to impose it on others.
Yes, the gun right and the abortion right are regular themes of mine on this board. Only by understanding the position of the other side can we understand that ALL Constitutional rights are about protecting you and me, and the women in our lives too, against government tyranny.
It was a 'right' declared by the courts. It can be just as easily undone by the courts. What the hell are you talking about?
-
Murder? C'mon, that's your particular moral values in overdrive. During the first trimester, a fetus has no separate existence apart from the mother. At such time, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of individual conscience.
And you entitled to your moral values, including to hyperventilate by using the term "murder" But what you don't have is the right to demand the state to impose your moral values on others.
All crimes are based on morals so your argument is irrelevant. You cannot use the argument "It isn't quite human" because it is the logic people used with slaves. Of course the child in the womb is a human. The question is "When is it acceptable to kill another human?".
-
All of the checks on leftism are on this with some people.
Check, believes in infertile marriage that can not create human life....
Check, believes in reproduction rights....that destroys life
Check, "Muslims are our friends and neighbors",
Check, lenient on immigration.
Check, criticizes Christians.
This is all anathema to traditional American values.
Almost everyone who defends gay rights so vociferously, is almost always very cold-hearted per the rights of the unborn.
-
Murder? C'mon, that's your particular moral values in overdrive. During the first trimester, a fetus has no separate existence apart from the mother. At such time, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of individual conscience.
And you entitled to your moral values, including to hyperventilate by using the term "murder" But what you don't have is the right to demand the state to impose your moral values on others.
A child up to 2 years old is completely dependent on their mother. There is however no part of a woman's body that has different DNA than her, with it's own heartbeat, that grows from conception into another completely separate being that ultimately leaves her body to grow up on it's own.
Chop off your arm and see how that works for you if you think otherwise. Your beliefs are fairy tale, not science.
-
A child up to 2 years old is completely dependent on their mother. There is however no part of a woman's body that has different DNA than her, with it's own heartbeat, that grows from conception into another completely separate being that ultimately leaves her body to grow up on it's own.
Chop off your arm and see how that works for you if you think otherwise. Your beliefs are fairy tale, not science.
Utter hogwash. Adopted infants don’t die simply because they’re no longer with their birth mother.
-
It was a 'right' declared by the courts. It can be just as easily undone by the courts. What the hell are you talking about?
There's a ratchet: Abortion on demand started out in the early times in a pregnancy, it's gone to legal with a baby half-way out of the birth canal, which is where it will stay if the resident leftist has his way. Likewise, there is a ratchet on the second Amendment, where more and more restrictions are applied, and that's where laws will stay too.
There is no "going back," even though technology has moved forward and babies are viable months before the due data, while more and better crime studies prove fewer restrictions on firearms equal less crime.
Liberals don't care, they don't want more life and safety, they want more control over the lives that are already here. Lying about their intent is required to keep the fiction alive.
-
Utter hogwash. Adopted infants don’t die simply because they’re no longer with their birth mother.
And preemies don't die simply because they come out of the womb before 9 months.
-
Sorry to agree, but I do.
Aye.
-
A child up to 2 years old is completely dependent on their mother. There is however no part of a woman's body that has different DNA than her, with it's own heartbeat, that grows from conception into another completely separate being that ultimately leaves her body to grow up on it's own.
Chop off your arm and see how that works for you if you think otherwise. Your beliefs are fairy tale, not science.
This isn't about my "beliefs". It is about your beliefs - and your apparent desire to impose them by force of government on others.
A woman has the right to choose whether to reproduce. That choice isn't unlimited, and can (like the gun right) be made subject to reasonable regulation. But her right of self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, just as is your right of self-defense.
-
Liberals don't care . . . they want more control over the lives that are already here.
You've got to be kidding.
It ain't liberals who want to force woman to reproduce.
Persuade others of your superior morality. Don't demand the government impose your morality on others.
-
And preemies don't die simply because they come out of the womb before 9 months.
Very good, grasshopper. Are you going to pay out of your own pocket to support all the preemies?
No, I didn’t think you would. You’d prefer to use the threat of state-sanctioned violence to make others fulfill your virtues.
-
You've got to be kidding.
It ain't liberals who want to force woman to reproduce.
Maybe you should rephrase this. At issue is what happens after the 'reproduce' part has already occurred.
-
You've got to be kidding.
It ain't liberals who want to force woman to reproduce.
Persuade others of your superior morality. Don't demand the government impose your morality on others.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Why even speculate on this? We don't know who is going to be chosen, whether or not they will be confirmed, and what cases may come up to the SCOTUS in the future. Way too early to be arguing this one.
-
This isn't about my "beliefs". It is about your beliefs - and your apparent desire to impose them by force of government on others.
A woman has the right to choose whether to reproduce. That choice isn't unlimited, and can (like the gun right) be made subject to reasonable regulation. But her right of self-determination is guaranteed by the Constitution, just as is your right of self-defense.
And pounding on the table by pontificating your religious beliefs are not going to make them Constitutional. Science has more than proven that the baby is a separate life, and therefore subject to the rights of personhood under the Constitution.
You can scream and hand wave all you want to try and merge mother and child in order to give the mother's 'rights' supremacy over the baby's, but your belief is fairy tale, not science, and certainly not constitutional.
-
Very good, grasshopper. Are you going to pay out of your own pocket to support all the preemies?
No, I didn’t think you would. You’d prefer to use the threat of state-sanctioned violence to make others fulfill your virtues.
Versus neutering the state so I can act on the threat of my personal-sanctioned violence to impose my virtues?
-
A Constitutional right is a Constitutional right. It doesn't matter if the right exists by reason of the plain text of the document, or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. That's simply a fact, and the law.
I don't dispute that the court's interpretation is treated as equally authoritative as the Constitution itself. I argue that the equation is illogical and destructive to ordered liberty.
What Harry Blackmun (or any other Justice) said about the Constitution is *not* the Constitution, and this is easily demonstrated : a later court can overturn an earlier one - indeed that possibility is the topic of this thread - but no court can overturn even a single punctuation mark in the Constitution.
Basing the law on an ontological contradiction is a root cause of the conflict that exists in the country today and has contributed significantly to the widespread contempt many hold for the legal profession, including the Supreme Court.
What fascinates me is the attitude of both liberals and conservatives towards Constitutional rights. It's fundamentally hypocritical. Conservatives worship the gun right and despise the abortion right. Liberals view the abortion right as sacrosanct, and deem the gun right illegitimate. Conservatives fight the abortion right by seeking to regulate and restrict it right up the Constitutional line, but threaten to shoot peace officers if the state suggests they register their guns. Liberals adopt a similar hostile attitude regarding the gun right, and claim the sky is falling if the state so much as requires a mother-to-be to look at a pamphlet.
The "abortion right" is a manifestation of the ontological contradiction in law, justified by the same self-serving definitions of "human" used by earlier generations to argue that some exist merely for the convenience of others and therefore enjoy no legal protections. The day will come when abortion is compared to abolition, and Roe v. Wade will be its Dred Scott.
There is nothing hypocritical in distinguishing the Second Amendment from Roe v. Wade or distinguishing ownership of a gun from ending a human life. What is fundamentally hypocritical is the assertion that women can freely choose to participate in intercourse and then retroactively shield themselves from the consequences of that choice by taking a human life, but men have no such retroactive choice to shield themselves from the consequences by refusing child support. That we do not generally make the latter argument reveals the contradiction in our thought.
Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights. They exist to protect the rights of individuals vis a vis the state. Those of you who demand the right to keep your guns secretly hidden from prying government eyes ought to have sympathy with the notion that the State cannot demand a woman reproduce against her will.
Owning a gun, whether in secret or in the open, does not end a human life, and is explicitly recognized in the Constitution. It is trivially easy to distinguish, both constitutionally and practically, that gun ownership is in no way analogous to abortion.
The state makes no demand on any woman that she reproduce against her will , regardless of the legal status of abortion. Women are completely free to choose not to reproduce, in the same manner that men are completely free to choose not to reproduce.
But of course, you don't. Your rights are crucial. A woman's? Not so much. You say an abortion ends a human life. That is a moral perspective you are certainly entitled to. But it not the right of the State to impose it on others.
It is precisely the role of the state to impose moral beliefs on all members of a society. Those imposed moral beliefs are called "laws", and as a society we do expect everyone to abide by them, whether as individuals they agree with them or not.
If you really believe the state cannot impose this moral belief, then under what circumstances can it impose any moral belief? Why are murder, or theft, or rape, or slavery illegal? All are imposed moral beliefs, why not make a "pro-choice" argument on any of these? For that matter, why not make a "pro-choice" argument for a baker to make, or not make, a wedding cake?
-
@HoustonSam
I do wish you would spend more time posting here! Great stuff!
-
@HoustonSam
I do wish you would spend more time posting here! Great stuff!
Thank you @Bigun.
-
@HoustonSam
I do wish you would spend more time posting here! Great stuff!
I echo that, @HoustonSam Your posts are always top notch. I will respond to your excellent comments later when I have time.
-
I echo that, @HoustonSam Your posts are always top notch. I will respond to your excellent comments later when I have time.
Thank you @Jazzhead for your gracious acknowledgement.
-
I don't dispute that the court's interpretation is treated as equally authoritative as the Constitution itself. I argue that the equation is illogical and destructive to ordered liberty.
What Harry Blackmun (or any other Justice) said about the Constitution is *not* the Constitution, and this is easily demonstrated : a later court can overturn an earlier one - indeed that possibility is the topic of this thread - but no court can overturn even a single punctuation mark in the Constitution.
Yes, a later court can overturn an earlier one, but the point is that conservative judging nevertheless respects precedent, especially when the issue isn't extending rights, but taking them away. The abortion right has been guaranteed by the Constitution for over 40 years. To a woman, I'm sure you'll agree that the right is quite fundamental. Despite their best efforts and intentions, women DO have unplanned pregnancies, and face existential crises as a result. Yes, I recognize the irony of using that word in a conversation about abortion, but it cannot be denied that the term "crisis pregnancy center" is no misnomer. Women need support, including financial and emotional support, to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. They have for 40 years now at least had the freedom of knowing the State was not going to take their options away.
As for "no court can overturn a single punctuation mark in the Constitution", there are plenty of reasonable folks, folks I disagree with, who claim the Heller decision read the entire predicate clause out of the Second Amendment!
Basing the law on an ontological contradiction is a root cause of the conflict that exists in the country today and has contributed significantly to the widespread contempt many hold for the legal profession, including the Supreme Court.
I'd say that contempt is misplaced, but I know you won't believe me. I'll just say there are lots of decent men and women who consider their work as lawyers as contributing to the betterment of things.
But you are correct that the original Roe decision was a thundershock in that it wiped away the laws in most of the states, and substituted the will of the Court for the will of the people. That is, in and of itself, disturbing, and I have always been of the view that Roe would never be legitimized until it was codified in the form of a Constitutional amendment. That will, of course, never happen, so it has become the ultimate political football. No issue divides us more as a people, and no issue is more directly the root cause of our current distress that some suggest is a budding civil war.
The "abortion right" is a manifestation of the ontological contradiction in law, justified by the same self-serving definitions of "human" used by earlier generations to argue that some exist merely for the convenience of others and therefore enjoy no legal protections. The day will come when abortion is compared to abolition, and Roe v. Wade will be its Dred Scott.
I don't think so. But the day WILL come when women are able to avoid or address unwanted pregnancies without the need for abortion. The liberty principle underlying the abortion right - the natural right to self-determination, extended to the female of the species - is not going away.
There is nothing hypocritical in distinguishing the Second Amendment from Roe v. Wade or distinguishing ownership of a gun from ending a human life. What is fundamentally hypocritical is the assertion that women can freely choose to participate in intercourse and then retroactively shield themselves from the consequences of that choice by taking a human life, but men have no such retroactive choice to shield themselves from the consequences by refusing child support. That we do not generally make the latter argument reveals the contradiction in our thought.
Again, the natural right that is protected is the right of self-determination. It takes two to tango, but the burden of pregnancy and childbirth is the woman's alone. And far too often, the burden of raising a child falls, too, on the woman alone. Is it hypocritical to afford few rights to the father? What right of self-determination does the father possess? And if he does, can it not be dismissed as cavalierly as some do with respect to women, by saying the guy should have just kept his pants zipped?
Owning a gun, whether in secret or in the open, does not end a human life, and is explicitly recognized in the Constitution. It is trivially easy to distinguish, both constitutionally and practically, that gun ownership is in no way analogous to abortion.
Not so fast - each is a tool to effectuate what is perceived as an important natural right. And where they certainly are the same is that, for each, one political side thinks that one Constitutional right is sacrosanct, and the other is illegitimate. And each political side refuses to compromise in its view that the state has no business interfering with the exercise of the right it favors, and to strip away the right it disfavors.
The state makes no demand on any woman that she reproduce against her will , regardless of the legal status of abortion. Women are completely free to choose not to reproduce, in the same manner that men are completely free to choose not to reproduce.
It is precisely the role of the state to impose moral beliefs on all members of a society. Those imposed moral beliefs are called "laws", and as a society we do expect everyone to abide by them, whether as individuals they agree with them or not.
If you really believe the state cannot impose this moral belief, then under what circumstances can it impose any moral belief? Why are murder, or theft, or rape, or slavery illegal? All are imposed moral beliefs, why not make a "pro-choice" argument on any of these? For that matter, why not make a "pro-choice" argument for a baker to make, or not make, a wedding cake?
We do not disagree regarding the moral belief. We disagree regarding the authority of the state to compel a woman to reproduce, in order to protect a fetus that cannot yet survive on its own. There is no answer I can give that will satisfy you that the fetus is undeserving of protection, especially if you ascribe to the fetus a soul.
But we have chosen to create a secular Republic, with a Constitution predicated on protecting the individual rights of the living. It is harsh to say so, but the Constitution does not protect non-viable fetuses, except as derivative of the rights of the mother. So an armed robbery gone awry can result in two victims, when a mother and fetus are killed. The mother's rights included her expectation that her growing child would have the state's protection. But vis a vis the mother herself, the situation of Solomon emerges. A choice must be made - is the woman's right of self-determination more important than the fetus' right to life?
I don't think the State can make that choice. I think the woman, and her support system of partner, family and community should she engage it, must make that choice. And so my regular mantra is - persuasion, not coercion.
-
Yes, a later court can overturn an earlier one, but the point is that conservative judging nevertheless respects precedent, especially when the issue isn't extending rights, but taking them away. The abortion right has been guaranteed by the Constitution for over 40 years. To a woman, I'm sure you'll agree that the right is quite fundamental. Despite their best efforts and intentions, women DO have unplanned pregnancies, and face existential crises as a result. Yes, I recognize the irony of using that word in a conversation about abortion, but it cannot be denied that the term "crisis pregnancy center" is no misnomer. Women need support, including financial and emotional support, to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. They have for 40 years now at least had the freedom of knowing the State was not going to take their options away.
As for "no one can overturn a single punctuation mark in the Constitution", there are plenty of reasonable folks, folks I disagree with, who claim the Heller decision read the entire predicate clause out of the Second Amendment!
I'd say that contempt is misplaced, but I know you won't believe me. I'll just say there are lots of decent men and women who consider their work as lawyers as contributing to the betterment of things.
But you are correct that the original Roe decision was a thundershock in that it wiped away the laws in most of the states, and substituted the will of the Court for the will of the people. That is, in and of itself, disturbing, and I have always been of the view that Roe would never be legitimized until it was codified in the form of a Constitutional amendment. That will, of course, never happen, so it has become the ultimate political football. No issue divides us more as a people, and no issue is more directly the root cause of our current distress that some suggest is a budding civil war.
I don't think so, The day will come when women are able to avoid or address unwanted pregnancies without the need for abortion. The liberty principle underlying the abortion right - the natural right to self-determination, extended to the female of the species - is not going away.
Again, the natural right that is protected is the right of self-determination. It takes two to tango, but the burden of pregnancy and childbirth is the woman's alone. And far too often, the burden of raising a child falls, too, on the woman alone. Is it hypocritical to afford few rights to the father? What right of self-determination does the father possess? And if he has, can it not be dismissed as cavalierly as some do with respect to women, by saying the guy should have just kept his pants zipped?
We do not disagree regarding the moral belief. We disagree regarding the authority of the state to compel a woman to reproduce, in protection of a non-viable fetus. There is no answer I can give that will satisfy you that the fetus is undeserving of protection, especially if you ascribe to the fetus a soul.
But we have chosen to create a secular Republic, with a Constitution predicated on protecting the individual rights of the living. It is harsh to say so, but the Constitution does not protect non-viable fetuses, except as derivative of the rights of the mother. So an armed robbery gone awry can result in two victims, when a mother and fetus are killed. The mother's rights included her expectation that her growing child would have the state's protection. But vis a vis the mother herself, the situation of Solomon emerges. A choice must be made - is the woman's right of self-determination more important than the fetus' right to life?
I don't think the State can make that choice. I think the woman, and her support system of partner, family and community should she engage it, must make that choice. So my regular mantra - persuasion, not coercion.
:thumbsup:
-
A fetus is simply an unborn baby. If a baby has a soul, then, yes, a fetus has a soul. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise except perhaps to argue that none of us have souls. That's a whole different direction with a whole new set of problems.
And, yes, a fetus/baby/toddler, whatever is a unique little human being, otherwise known as a person.
-
A fetus is simply an unborn baby. If a baby has a soul, then, yes, a fetus has a soul. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise except perhaps to argue that none of us have souls. That's a whole different direction with a whole new set of problems.
And, yes, a fetus/baby/toddler, whatever is a unique little human being, otherwise known as a person.
Thanks for reading my response, @Sanguine . I understand and appreciate the moral issue. The legal and Constitutional issue is the right of the State to have a coercive, rather than a merely persuasive, role with respect to a matter of individual conscience.
-
Thanks for reading my response, @Sanguine . I understand and appreciate the moral issue. The legal and Constitutional issue is the right of the State to have a coercive, rather than a merely persuasive, role with respect to a matter of individual conscience.
I understand the argument about persuasion vs. coercion, but if we acknowledge that fetuses have souls, where do we go from there?
-
I don't think "persuasion" is effective in stopping murder. There's a reason it's technically against the law.
-
I understand the argument about persuasion vs. coercion, but if we acknowledge that fetuses have souls, where do we go from there?
Do the right thing, and do your best to persuade others to do likewise. One soul at a time. Just like the Bible says.
-
I don't think "persuasion" is effective in stopping murder.
It will have to be. This isn't "murder" by a stranger. This is a woman, and what is growing in her body. It is inherently personal. The state can play no coercive role.
-
It will have to be. This isn't "murder" by a stranger. This is a woman, and what is growing in her body. It is inherently personal. The state can play no coercive role.
So, murder is OK if it's done by one's mother? Surely that's not what you are saying.
-
So, murder is OK if it's done by one's mother? Surely that's not what you are saying.
I didn't say it was OK. But it is an inherently a personal decision - and the woman's understanding of her faith and the human soul may well be the determinant. Not the State's.
-
So, murder is OK if it's done by one's mother? Surely that's not what you are saying.
It’s not murder.
-
A woman has the right to choose whether to reproduce.
Yep... Right up until her knees come apart.
The risk to a man for a moment of ecstasy does not go away because he rejects his spawn. It will cost him from his treasure, by force of law, for twenty years. That is the cost for taking down his zipper.
Where is the consequence for women? If she need not bear the consequence, then neither should the man be so required.
No. The natural point of risk is in the choice to engage in intercourse. Before that point there need be no commitment for either party, and after the fact, there should be commitment for both.
That is why marriage is important. It safeguards that natural act with a natural commitment - BEFORE the fact.
-
Yep... Right up until her knees come apart.
The risk to a man for a moment of ecstasy does not go away because he rejects his spawn. It will cost him from his treasure, by force of law, for twenty years. That is the cost for taking down his zipper.
Where is the consequence for women? If she need not bear the consequence, then neither should the man be so required.
No. The natural point of risk is in the choice to engage in intercourse. Before that point there need be no commitment for either party, and after the fact, there should be commitment for both.
That is why marriage is important. It safeguards that natural act with a natural commitment - BEFORE the fact.
She has the right to choose right up to the moment of birth.
Until and unless the State can take over the gestation of the fetus, and stands ready to do so, it has no business forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy she does not want.
She has as much right to remove a trespasser from her body, by force if necessary, as you do to remove a trespasser from your house, by force if necessary.
And your view of marriage is surreal. Ever heard of marital rape?
-
That is why marriage is important. It safeguards that natural act with a natural commitment - BEFORE the fact.
But note that marriage is not compelled by the State. You know, that pesky right of self-determination and all.
-
Yep... Right up until her knees come apart.
The risk to a man for a moment of ecstasy does not go away because he rejects his spawn. It will cost him from his treasure, by force of law, for twenty years. That is the cost for taking down his zipper.
Where is the consequence for women? If she need not bear the consequence, then neither should the man be so required.
No. The natural point of risk is in the choice to engage in intercourse. Before that point there need be no commitment for either party, and after the fact, there should be commitment for both.
That is why marriage is important. It safeguards that natural act with a natural commitment - BEFORE the fact.
The entire purpose of abortion is to keep women available for easy sex.
-
The entire purpose of abortion is to keep women available for easy sex.
Now there's the sexist observation of the year!
-
It’s not murder.
Ending the life of another, innocent human is not murder?
-
She has as much right to remove a trespasser from her body, by force if necessary, as you do to remove a trespasser from your house, by force if necessary.
*trespasser*....OMG it's a human being a baby... **nononono*
-
Now there's the sexist observation of the year!
Thanks for keeping your part in all this crystal clear, for any who may have forgotten.
-
Now there's the sexist observation of the year!
It applies to those who are pro-abortion.
-
*trespasser*....OMG it's a human being a baby... **nononono*
One would hope the trespasser would have the decency to wipe his/her feet.
-
Murder? C'mon, that's your particular moral values in overdrive. During the first trimester, a fetus has no separate existence apart from the mother. At such time, the moral status of the fetus is a matter of individual conscience.
And you entitled to your moral values, including to hyperventilate by using the term "murder" But what you don't have is the right to demand the state to impose your moral values on others.
Abortion as a form of birth control is immoral (evil) and it is murder. Our founding documents state
that each of us have a right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please note the word
LIFE. Claiming the constitution grants the right to MURDER and unborn child is an obscenity.
There are valid reasons to abort a child, life of the mother for example, but not birth control. Give
the child up for adoption, perhaps the father will take it. There are options other than killing it.
Will RvW be over turned? No, the precedent is set however abortions can be curtailed and limited
without overturning RvW.
-
It applies to those who are pro-abortion.
I happen to think that those who strive to keep women available for easy sex are the biggest misogynists of them all.
-
Ending the life of another, innocent human is not murder?
Happens all the time. Is it murder when the brakes of your car fail because you were ignoring the schreeching from them and you run an innocent pedestrian over and kill him with your car?
-
I happen to think that those who strive to keep women available for easy sex are the biggest misogynists of them all.
Yes, definitionally so.
-
Abortion as a form of birth control is immoral (evil) and it is murder. Our founding documents state
that each of us have a right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Please note the word
LIFE. Claiming the constitution grants the right to MURDER and unborn child is an obscenity.
There are valid reasons to abort a child, life of the mother for example, but not birth control. Give
the child up for adoption, perhaps the father will take it. There are options other than killing it.
Will RvW be over turned? No, the precedent is set however abortions can be curtailed and limited
without overturning RvW.
You can’t have it both ways: either abortion is murder and unacceptable under all circumstances, or it is not, in which case we’re merely arguing over where the line should be drawn.
-
Happens all the time. Is it murder when the brakes of your car fail because you were ignoring the schreeching from them and you run an innocent pedestrian over and kill him with your car?
That would be a subset of murder, manslaughter, if it were proven that you were negligent in maintaining your vehicle. Come on, that's not even a halfway decent argument!
-
It applies to those who are pro-abortion.
Absolutely does not.
-
Absolutely does not.
Yeah, it really does.
-
That would be a subset of murder, manslaughter, if it were proven that you were negligent in maintaining your vehicle. Come on, that's not even a halfway decent argument!
Manslaughter is not a subset of murder, and no, it wouldn’t even be manslaughter. It would be a tragic accident.
-
She has the right to choose right up to the moment of birth.
Until and unless the State can take over the gestation of the fetus, and stands ready to do so, it has no business forcing a woman to continue with a pregnancy she does not want.
If she did not want a pregnancy, then she should not have engaged in sex. The math is simple.
She has as much right to remove a trespasser from her body, by force if necessary, as you do to remove a trespasser from your house, by force if necessary.
The baby is not a trespasser. The baby was invited.
And your view of marriage is surreal. Ever heard of marital rape?
marital rape is a crime. Lets stick to the concept for a while before hauling out exceptions.
-
Yeah, it really does.
No, it really doesn’t.
-
Manslaughter is not a subset of murder, and no, it wouldn’t even be manslaughter. It would be a tragic accident.
You're flailing. Your argument is weak and not relevant to the question of right to life.
-
If she did not want a pregnancy, then she should not have engaged in sex. The math is simple.
The baby is not a trespasser. The baby was invited.
marital rape is a crime. Lets stick to the concept for a while before hauling out exceptions.
Even a guest can become a trespasser if he overstays his welcome. If you can remove, by force if necessary, a guest who has decided to take up permanent residence in your house, then the analogy is quite apt.
-
Why even speculate on this? We don't know who is going to be chosen, whether or not they will be confirmed, and what cases may come up to the SCOTUS in the future. Way too early to be arguing this one.
:thumbsup:
I think I will make an attempt to stay out of the debate. You right it serves no purpose untill we
have a nominee.
-
Even a guest can become a trespasser if he overstays his welcome. If you can remove, by force if necessary, a guest who has decided to take up permanent residence in your house, then the analogy is quite apt.
Actually, depending on the jurisdiction, the invited guest may have rights even after they become unwelcome.
-
:thumbsup:
I think I will make an attempt to stay out of the debate. You right it serve no purpose untill we
have a nominee.
And, I think I will now take my own (forgotten) advice. :laugh:
-
You're flailing. Your argument is weak and not relevant to the question of right to life.
No, you’re trying to dodge the issue. Do we sanction, or excuse, killing? All the time. Killing is not the same as murder. You’re using the word “murder†the same way liberals use the word “racismâ€: to shut down a discussion you can’t win.
-
Actually, depending on the jurisdiction, the invited guest may have rights even after they become unwelcome.
Really? To sleep in your bed, eat your food, and have you cater to his every whim? Permanently?
-
But note that marriage is not compelled by the State. You know, that pesky right of self-determination and all.
Too bad it isn't. It is the natural remedy to a bastard child that will likely be a burden and ward of the state in some capacity.
-
The entire purpose of abortion is to keep women available for easy sex.
That's right.
-
Too bad it isn't. It is the natural remedy to a bastard child that will likely be a burden and ward of the state in some capacity.
Yeah. Because imprisoning a woman and child to slavery with an abusive man has worked so damned well in the past.
-
Now there's the sexist observation of the year!
But it is perfectly true, and has turned the life of a generation or better into a gigantic frat party, with all of the shortsightedness and endemic problems that result from such a lifestyle.
-
*trespasser*....OMG it's a human being a baby... **nononono*
IKR??? :shrug: *****rollingeyes*****
-
But it is perfectly true, and has turned the life of a generation or better into a gigantic frat party, with all of the shortsightedness and endemic problems that result from such a lifestyle.
Yeah, because before Roe v Wade all men were perfect gentlemen who never, not once, ever thought of having sex outside the bounds of lawful wedded matrimony.
-
*trespasser*....OMG it's a human being a baby... **nononono*
And the uninvited guest in your house is just as much a human being. Why is it ok to murder the no-longer-welcome guest?
-
Even a guest can become a trespasser if he overstays his welcome. If you can remove, by force if necessary, a guest who has decided to take up permanent residence in your house, then the analogy is quite apt.
But it is not a permanent residence - It is transitory by nature, with the predictable length-of-stay known beforehand. The invitation assumes the risk.
-
Yeah. Because imprisoning a woman and child to slavery with an abusive man has worked so damned well in the past.
It's a pity your revulsion to slavery does not extend to men forced to pay child support. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
But it is not a permanent residence - It is transitory by nature, with the predictable length-of-stay known beforehand. The invitation assumes the risk.
Really? You ask someone to come in for a few minutes, and they now have an enforceable right against you to live in your house, and be served hand and foot by you?
-
It's a pity your revulsion to slavery does not extend to men forced to pay child support. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Maybe you should have hired a better lawyer to get your child support reduced.
-
Yeah. Because imprisoning a woman and child to slavery with an abusive man has worked so damned well in the past.
That is hyperventilating. Real abuse is grounds for divorce, even according to the most fundamental Christians.
And what we are doing now, with 60m abortions, and bastard children literally everywhere, a massive burden and welfare state, is working so much better?
You can't be serious.
-
Maybe you should have hired a better lawyer to get your child support reduced.
LOL. It lakes a lawyer to hold the key that opens the lock of justice. Nice work, if you can get it.
-
Really? You ask someone to come in for a few minutes, and they now have an enforceable right against you to live in your house, and be served hand and foot by you?
Oh, so you've been to California?
-
Really? You ask someone to come in for a few minutes, and they now have an enforceable right against you to live in your house, and be served hand and foot by you?
The invitation is not for 'a few minutes' the entire risk is realized before the fact. Just as it is for the man. The cost for the man, if the woman decides to keep the baby, cannot be rejected, and is enforced upon his treasure for twenty years. It is not too much to ask 9 months from the woman. In fact, the whole twenty years is suitable for her too, just the same.
-
The invitation is not for 'a few minutes' the entire risk is realized before the fact. Just as it is for the man. The cost for the man, if the woman decides to keep the baby, cannot be rejected, and is enforced upon his treasure for twenty years. It is not too much to ask 9 months from the woman. In fact, the whole twenty years is suitable for her too, just the same.
It is entirely too much to ask of a woman. It is enforced bondage. If you don’t like it, then figure out how the State can take over the gestation; otherwise, keep your nose out of other people’s private affairs.
-
That is hyperventilating. Real abuse is grounds for divorce, even according to the most fundamental Christians.
And what we are doing now, with 60m abortions, and bastard children literally everywhere, a massive burden and welfare state, is working so much better?
You can't be serious.
Yeah, Roe v Wade is the sole cause of the massive welfare state.
-
It is entirely too much to ask of a woman. It is enforced bondage. If you don’t like it, then figure out how the State can take over the gestation; otherwise, keep your nose out of other people’s private affairs.
And child support payments for twenty years is NOT forced bondage?
-
LOL. It lakes a lawyer to hold the key that opens the lock of justice. Nice work, if you can get it.
The Founders enshrined the right to assistance of a lawyer in the Sixth Amendment. Was that just payola to get the lawyers to support ratification of the Constitution, or do you think they were on to something.
-
And child support payments for twenty years is NOT forced bondage?
That’s not relevant to whether forcing a woman to reproduce is bondage. That’s just the same as saying that Obama ruled unconstitutionally by executive order, and therefore Trump can, too.
-
The Constitution says not a word about abortion and has not been amended regarding that matter. That being the case, the fed gov has no dog in the hunt and the individual states are free to deal with the matter as they choose. Period. End of sentence.
-
Yeah, Roe v Wade is the sole cause of the massive welfare state.
It most certainly is the lion's share of the welfare state. Single-parent households are a huge burden. And that percolates down into crime too... Fatherless houses are an immense problem.
-
Oh, so you've been to California?
And California is the benchmark for all that is wise and just?
-
It most certainly is the lion's share of the welfare state. Single-parent households are a huge burden. And that percolates down into crime too... Fatherless houses are an immense problem.
Please do explain how Roe v Wade is the sole and sufficient cause of all that.
-
And the uninvited guest in your house is just as much a human being. Why is it ok to murder the no-longer-welcome guest?
Who said I would murder an un-welcomed guest
-
The Constitution says not a word about abortion and has not been amended regarding that matter. That being the case, the fed gov has no dog in the hunt and the individual states are free to deal with the matter as they choose. Period. End of sentence.
The Constitution is silent regarding cellphones and computers, too, so they can be searched and seized without having to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
-
Who said I would murder an un-welcomed guest
So you are willing to concede that you have no right to use force if necessary to remove someone from your house, even if that person is living in your house as if it were his own, and demanding that you serve him hand and foot? You have no right to defend home and hearth with deadly force?
-
That’s not relevant to whether forcing a woman to reproduce is bondage. That’s just the same as saying that Obama ruled unconstitutionally by executive order, and therefore Trump can, too.
Not exactly true, as the man and the woman are involved in the same serialized transaction.
The very same encounter leaves the woman with no consequence for the risk, and a tremendous consequence is ladled upon the man - for the very same risk.
That is not equitable, and it drives poverty.
-
And California is the benchmark for all that is wise and just?
You say that like approve of the actions of my neighbor to the west...I'm just citing an example of how effed up things can get when they're followed to their logical conclusion.
-
The Constitution is silent regarding cellphones and computers, too, so they can be searched and seized without having to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
The 4th amendment is part of the Constitution councilor. You should know that.
And don't try to tell me that the 4th amendment applies to elective abortion because It most certainly does not.
-
The Constitution is silent regarding cellphones and computers, too, so they can be searched and seized without having to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
That's a work in progress in the courts. The law in five years will look much different.
-
So you are willing to concede that you have no right to use force if necessary to remove someone from your house, even if that person is living in your house as if it were his own, and demanding that you serve him hand and foot? You have no right to defend home and hearth with deadly force?
Sorry I don't consider a pregnancy [planned or unplanned] a trespasser...and to dissolve that pregnancy is murder.
-
Not exactly true, as the man and the woman are involved in the same serialized transaction.
The very same encounter leaves the woman with no consequence for the risk, and a tremendous consequence is ladled upon the man - for the very same risk.
That is not equitable, and it drives poverty.
It’s still not relevant to the question of whether it’s ok for the State to force a woman to reproduce.
-
That's a work in progress in the courts. The law in five years will look much different.
And therein lies the problem. For a century the left has used courts to create laws they could never get passed legislatively.
-
The 4th amendment is part of the Constitution councilor. You should know that.
And don't try to tell me that the 4th amendment applies to elective abortion because It most certainly does not.
Where in the Fourth Amendment does it mention cellphones or computers? Better yet, where in the Fourth Amendment does it mention phone calls?
-
Sorry I don't consider a pregnancy [planned or unplanned] a trespasser...and to dissolve that pregnancy is murder.
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.
-
Where in the Fourth Amendment does it mention cellphones or computers? Better yet, where in the Fourth Amendment does it mention phone calls?
"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."
4th amendment, US Constitution.
Perhaps you need a refresher course in reading comprehension.
-
That's a work in progress in the courts. The law in five years will look much different.
Have you been paying attention to recent cases? The Supreme Court has most definitely included cellphones and computers within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, just last week they held that the cellphone company’s location logs for a given phone were also subject to the Fourth Amendment.
Where is all that carping about such unmitigated judicial activism?
-
And therein lies the problem. For a century the left has used courts to create laws they could never get passed legislatively.
Any time technology makes a major move forward, it takes a lag time to get the law up to speed on the consequences. On the one side, ther's law enforcement wanting to take advantage of every new thing, and on the other side are the people who want to protect their rights under the Constitution and its varoius Amendments.
-
"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."
4th amendment, US Constitution.
Perhaps you need a refresher course in reading comprehension.
Really, would you care to underline the word “computer†the word “cellphone†and the phrase “telephone call†for me?
-
Have you been paying attention to recent cases? The Supreme Court has most definitely included cellphones and computers within the ambit of the Fourth Amendment. In fact, just last week they held that the cellphone company’s location logs for a given phone were also subject to the Fourth Amendment.
Where is all that carping about such unmitigated judicial activism?
I'm not disagreeing with you. Straightening out the ramifications of new technology is a proper function of the courts. Otherwise, we'd be stuck with the Second Amendment only covering muskets, or the First only covering quill pens and printing presses.
ETA: Yes, I have been paying attention to recent cases. I figured if I mentioned the cell phone one without remembering exactly what it was, you'd call me FOS.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you. Straightening out the ramifications of new technology is a proper function of the courts. Otherwise, we'd be stuck with the Second Amendment only covering muskets, or the First only covering quill pens and printing presses.
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.
-
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.
There's interpreting in light of the obvious developments in technology, then there's interpreting in light of the current social fads. My example of accommodating current technology is an example of the former, and "discovering" a Federal right to abortion is an example of the latter.
I choose not to conflate those two ideas.
-
No, you’re trying to dodge the issue. Do we sanction, or excuse, killing? All the time. Killing is not the same as murder. You’re using the word “murder†the same way liberals use the word “racismâ€: to shut down a discussion you can’t win.
Nope. I used murder to mean murder.
-
'''But the day WILL come when women are able to avoid or address unwanted pregnancies without the need for abortion....
Do you not believe that women today ARE able to do that? Do you understand that FREE contraception is available for those that can not afford it?
-
Really? To sleep in your bed, eat your food, and have you cater to his every whim? Permanently?
"cater to his every whim"? Oh, my. Hyperventilate and move the goal posts at the same time.
-
Really, would you care to underline the word “computer†the word “cellphone†and the phrase “telephone call†for me?
How about we just try the word "effects".
-
Please do explain how Roe v Wade is the sole and sufficient cause of all that.
I did not say it was sole and sufficient. No-fault divorce figures into it too. As does drug use. But all of that is part and parcel of the frat party started in the 60's, where the sanctity of marriage was rejected by the secular state, abortion law made babies 'fetuses', thus reducing the value of life to a pittance, and women's liberation subjected millions of women to a life of poverty and the stress of single parenthood.
The second generation drove crime and drug use, and youthful machismo replaced measured manhood, further lessening the value of life and the value of women - Because poverty stricken and uneducated boys had no strong hand to keep them at bay during teenage rebellion, and poverty stricken teenage girls sought out the security of a father in the arms of those addle-headed boys. And so it goes.
In a word, rejection of a lifestyle that has sustained man for eons has nearly sealed our doom. The party is long over, the house is destroyed, there are hungover participants laying all over the place in pools of their own vomit.
And Dad will be home any minute.
What we have become is unsustainable.
Liberty has responsibilities.
Freedom has consequences.
-
There's interpreting in light of the obvious developments in technology, then there's interpreting in light of the current social fads. My example of accommodating current technology is an example of the former, and "discovering" a Federal right to abortion is an example of the latter.
I choose not to conflate those two ideas.
It is no more far-fetched than the Court’s eventual conclusion that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that what matters is whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in the thing searched or the thing seized.
In point of fact, the cases that give protection to phone calls require quite a stretch, not dissimilar to Roe v Wade, because those cases found a reasonable expectation of privacy even though the phone calls were made over equipment that belonged to an independent third party that had no obligation - such as that of an attorney or other fiduciary - to maintain the privacy of those calls.
The Fourth has been expanded well beyond its original contours, in ways, and on theories, that are substantially similar to many cases that get sniffed at here as “judicial activism.â€
-
Yeah, because before Roe v Wade all men were perfect gentlemen who never, not once, ever thought of having sex outside the bounds of lawful wedded matrimony.
The fact that there may be exceptions to the rule does not strengthen your argument.
-
How about we just try the word "effects".
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 “cellphoneâ€, so clearly interpretation by a court is necessary in order to get to the result you want.
-
The Constitution says not a word about abortion and has not been amended regarding that matter. That being the case, the fed gov has no dog in the hunt and the individual states are free to deal with the matter as they choose. Period. End of sentence.
That's about the size of it, right there.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 “cellphoneâ€, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 .....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 Constitutionâ€. That’s also known as hypocrisy.
-
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 Constitutionâ€. That’s also known as hypocrisy.
Bovine fecal matter!
-
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 Constitutionâ€. That’s also known as hypocrisy.
Um.... that sounds a bit like a liberal/leftie interpretation of what I posted. Odd, that.
-
I’m sorry you feel you got a raw deal out of the child support order; perhaps if you’d had a better lawyer .....
I don't have a child support order. But I have withheld those funds from my employees for years - Employees, many of whom are living in their car or in a refrigerator box because of that withholding... To the point of turning an old shed at my business into a bunkhouse.
That payment destroys a man, and is often the difference in supporting a home of his own - and definitely impacts any thought of a retirement.
-
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.
That's right. And in fact that still isn't fair. What of the man that would keep the baby? It is of his blood as much as hers, by the very definition.
-
I don't have a child support order. But I have withheld those funds from my employees for years - Employees, many of whom are living in their car or in a refrigerator box because of that withholding... To the point of turning an old shed at my business into a bunkhouse.
That payment destroys a man, and is often the difference in supporting a home of his own - and definitely impacts any thought of a retirement.
He informed me that I also payed Child Support on another thread. Just like you. *****rollingeyes*****
-
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.
It is a matter of fact that you get more of what you support.
Government currently supports abortion, divorce, bastard children, and single family homes. And the government penalizes marriage and it's sanctity.
You do the math.
-
I don't have a child support order. But I have withheld those funds from my employees for years - Employees, many of whom are living in their car or in a refrigerator box because of that withholding... To the point of turning an old shed at my business into a bunkhouse.
That payment destroys a man, and is often the difference in supporting a home of his own - and definitely impacts any thought of a retirement.
ADDENDUM:
I later had to remove the bunks because, through the investigation of a child support order, it was ruled that my provision was a form of compensation and subject to calculation against the man. And thus the bunkhouse went away. Necessarily stuffed full of parts and supplies, subject to several inspections to make sure I wasn't doing it anymore.
BULLSHIT.
-
Bovine fecal matter!
Right back atcha, sport.
-
Um.... that sounds a bit like a liberal/leftie interpretation of what I posted. Odd, that.
So now you’re admitting to being a liberal/leftie? Because that is the essence of your position.
-
So now you’re admitting to being a liberal/leftie? Because that is the essence of your position.
Sounded to me like she, too, objects to you twisting her words.
-
I don't have a child support order. But I have withheld those funds from my employees for years - Employees, many of whom are living in their car or in a refrigerator box because of that withholding... To the point of turning an old shed at my business into a bunkhouse.
That payment destroys a man, and is often the difference in supporting a home of his own - and definitely impacts any thought of a retirement.
Like I said, maybe they should have had better lawyers.
And just whom do you expect to pay for the care and feeding of these “men’s†offspring? Letting them go without paying doesn’t make the child go away and simply shifts those costs to someone else, like the rest of us, who clearly played no role in the creation of their children.
-
Sounded to me like she, too, objects to you twisting her words.
She objects to having the ugly truth pointed out. So do most people.
-
It is a matter of fact that you get more of what you support.
Government currently supports abortion, divorce, bastard children, and single family homes. And the government penalizes marriage and it's sanctity.
You do the math.
Again, you’re resorting to irrelevancies. There is no logical connection between the freedom for a woman to choose an abortion and government support of abortion. The one does not entail the other. I quite agree that the government should not be in the business of providing or paying for abortions, just as I believe it should not be in the business of outlawing them.
-
She objects to having the ugly truth pointed out. So do most people.
People tend to detest word-twisters, yeah. It's an ugly argumentation technique.
-
Like I said, maybe they should have had better lawyers.
And just whom do you expect to pay for the care and feeding of these “men’s†offspring? Letting them go without paying doesn’t make the child go away and simply shifts those costs to someone else, like the rest of us, who clearly played no role in the creation of their children.
Exactly right - which is why marriage is the obvious answer, and the answer that has been the answer for generation upon generation, for all time.
Never mind. Time will tell the paucity of your position. Soon enough, the welfare state will outstrip the ability of the government to pay for it... And if we two live through the collapse, we will see how things revert to the truth. Without uncle nanny providing the tools of decadence, decadence will necessarily flee. And in that, justice will bloom again.
It's how it works. Deny history all you like. Claim the sophistry that we are so much better than our fathers... It will necessarily come to naught.
-
People tend to detest word-twisters, yeah. It's an ugly argumentation technique.
I’m sorry you think telling the truth bluntly is twisting words.
-
Exactly right - which is why marriage is the obvious answer, and the answer that has been the answer for generation upon generation, for all time.
Never mind. Time will tell the paucity of your position. Soon enough, the welfare state will outstrip the ability of the government to pay for it... And if we two live through the collapse, we will see how things revert to the truth. Without uncle nanny providing the tools of decadence, decadence will necessarily flee. And in that, justice will bloom again.
It's how it works. Deny history all you like. Claim the sophistry that we are so much better than our fathers... It will necessarily come to naught.
Marriage is not “the answerâ€. Oftentimes it is, and people should not be dissuaded from marrying and from working on solving the problems that arise in a marriage, but marriage will not fix what is already broken, and it will not magically solve all the ills of the world. And that goes double for forced marriages, and marriages from which there is no divorce.
-
Sounded to me like she, too, objects to you twisting her words.
He just can't help himself. It's how they roll.....what they do. He keeps making our case for us with every word he posts....lol.
-
She objects to having the ugly truth pointed out. So do most people.
Only..... you (obviously) wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up, sat on your face and held a week-long sleepover! :silly:
-
Only..... you (obviously) wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up, sat on your face and held a week-long sleepover! :silly:
If you say so.
-
It's all part of the long struggle, this is one step closer as Romney/Ryan were one step closer, things rarely happen over night. Even a lot of scholars, even people like Charles Krauthammer, no noted pro-lifer said the Roe V. Wade decision was a travesty. States should not have this imposed on them just like for the most part, States have regulated marriage.
-
Marriage is not “the answerâ€. Oftentimes it is, and people should not be dissuaded from marrying and from working on solving the problems that arise in a marriage, but marriage will not fix what is already broken, and it will not magically solve all the ills of the world. And that goes double for forced marriages, and marriages from which there is no divorce.
Yes, in fact it is the only answer. And the evidence lies a mere fifty years in our past. Divorce was possible - only fault had to be proven. The state of divorce was minimal, abortion was largely illegal, bastard children were relatively few, crime was extremely low, and (state and church run) social services cost very little by comparison.
This brave new world of yours is a wrecking ball.
-
Congrats to those who didn't abandon ship; it's a slow process but it's coming along.
-
Yes, in fact it is the only answer. And the evidence lies a mere fifty years in our past. Divorce was possible - only fault had to be proven. The state of divorce was minimal, abortion was largely illegal, bastard children were relatively few, crime was extremely low, and (state and church run) social services cost very little by comparison.
This brave new world of yours is a wrecking ball.
No, in fact, it isn’t the answer in a substantial number of cases. And neither are rigid or parsimonious divorce rules. Those who think otherwise are the ones denying history.
-
Yes, in fact it is the only answer. And the evidence lies a mere fifty years in our past. Divorce was possible - only fault had to be proven. The state of divorce was minimal, abortion was largely illegal, bastard children were relatively few, crime was extremely low, and (state and church run) social services cost very little by comparison.
This brave new world of yours is a wrecking ball.
As intended to be.
-
As intended to be.
Precisely so.
-
One wonders why same-sex marriage was not a constitutional right for 220 years in the Republic, all of a sudden, it's constitutional. Again, let's not forget, the SCOTUS stood up for slavery. So, really, the Democrats continue to be on the wrong side of the issues.
-
No, in fact, it isn’t the answer in a substantial number of cases. And neither are rigid or parsimonious divorce rules. Those who think otherwise are the ones denying history.
False.
The exceptions you might sputter on about do nothing but prove the rule.
Marriage is a contract, and that contract is avowed for life. There is a reason for that.
Whatever is assumed otherwise has been proven over and again to be false - every democracy ever has died this same peculiar death. What you see as freedom is actually symptomatic of the destruction thereof. The toll will be paid, and the pain of it will be immense.
-
False.
The exceptions you might sputter on about do nothing but prove the rule.
Marriage is a contract, and that contract is avowed for life. There is a reason for that.
Whatever is assumed otherwise has been proven over and again to be false - every democracy ever has died this same peculiar death. What you see as freedom is actually symptomatic of the destruction thereof. The toll will be paid, and the pain of it will be immense.
History puts the lie to you. Marriage is not the answer in many cases, and when it is not, only a sadist would insist that failed marriages be maintained because of some ideological belief of his.
-
Thanks @Jazzhead for coming back to the thread.
Yes, a later court can overturn an earlier one, but the point is that conservative judging nevertheless respects precedent, especially when the issue isn't extending rights, but taking them away. The abortion right has been guaranteed by the Constitution for over 40 years. To a woman, I'm sure you'll agree that the right is quite fundamental. Despite their best efforts and intentions, women DO have unplanned pregnancies, and face existential crises as a result. Yes, I recognize the irony of using that word in a conversation about abortion, but it cannot be denied that the term "crisis pregnancy center" is no misnomer. Women need support, including financial and emotional support, to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. They have for 40 years now at least had the freedom of knowing the State was not going to take their options away.
My point there was simply to distinguish an opinion, even of the Supreme Court, from the Constitution itself. Precedent must be respected to prevent the law from becoming unpredictable, but that respect cannot be absolute else we would still be living under Plessy v. Ferguson. Some SC opinions *should* be overturned.
I dispute that parenthood is more fundamental to a woman than to a man. Perhaps the nine months of pregnancy are more fundamental to a woman, but the following 18 years of support, with the alternative being judicial punishment, are more fundamental to a man. Yet our laws afford absolute deference to the former and no consideration at all of the latter, on the argument that if the man can't live with the consequences then he "should have kept his pants zipped." The same should be said of the woman.
And neither parenthood, nor the nine months of pregnancy, nor the 18 years of child support, are more fundamental than the very right to life of the third party in the equation, the child.
As for "no court can overturn a single punctuation mark in the Constitution", there are plenty of reasonable folks, folks I disagree with, who claim the Heller decision read the entire predicate clause out of the Second Amendment!
Although I'm not an attorney I appreciate your analysis, described elsewhere, that the RKBA is actually in legal jeopardy. As a question of fact I agree with you. As a question of principle and the plain meaning of words I believe such a decision would drive further the contempt for the judiciary I have mentioned earlier. Stated differently, the *subject* clause of the Second Amendment says "the right of the *people*", not "the right of the *militia*", and everyone who can read can plainly see that.
I'd say that contempt is misplaced, but I know you won't believe me. I'll just say there are lots of decent men and women who consider their work as lawyers as contributing to the betterment of things.
I find the contempt unfortunate and harmful, but I'm afraid I don't find it misplaced. I don't think lawyers as a class are mal-intentioned - it is literally true that "some of my best friends are lawyers" - but I will argue that lawyers are unlikely to have an unbiased view of the judiciary overall. Presidents and career executive branch officials argue for the authority of the Executive Branch, Congressmen argue for the authority of the legislature, attorneys argue for the authority of the courts. None are unbiased. Only the courts have succeeded in making themselves the arbiters of issues in which they have an institutional vested interest. I am a research manager in the chemical industry, and I certainly don't have an unbiased view of my own industry.
But you are correct that the original Roe decision was a thundershock in that it wiped away the laws in most of the states, and substituted the will of the Court for the will of the people. That is, in and of itself, disturbing, and I have always been of the view that Roe would never be legitimized until it was codified in the form of a Constitutional amendment. That will, of course, never happen, so it has become the ultimate political football. No issue divides us more as a people, and no issue is more directly the root cause of our current distress that some suggest is a budding civil war.
I agree here. If the abortion divide coincided with geography as did the abolition divide 170 years ago, I suspect it might have already led to far more serious division.
I don't think so. But the day WILL come when women are able to avoid or address unwanted pregnancies without the need for abortion. The liberty principle underlying the abortion right - the natural right to self-determination, extended to the female of the species - is not going away.
Again, the natural right that is protected is the right of self-determination. It takes two to tango, but the burden of pregnancy and childbirth is the woman's alone. And far too often, the burden of raising a child falls, too, on the woman alone. Is it hypocritical to afford few rights to the father? What right of self-determination does the father possess? And if he does, can it not be dismissed as cavalierly as some do with respect to women, by saying the guy should have just kept his pants zipped?
Women have the right to self-determination whether or not abortion is legal. Women can choose to remain childless in the same manner that men can choose to remain childless. And the rights of men *are* dismissed cavalierly by saying that he should have kept his pants zipped. That is the greatest hypocrisy within the abortion debate. Why does a woman have the unilateral right to determine not only a nine-month period of her own life but an 18 year period of a man's, and to determine the *entire* life of the developing child?
Not so fast - each is a tool to effectuate what is perceived as an important natural right. And where they certainly are the same is that, for each, one political side thinks that one Constitutional right is sacrosanct, and the other is illegitimate. And each political side refuses to compromise in its view that the state has no business interfering with the exercise of the right it favors, and to strip away the right it disfavors.
Yes each side believes one right is sacrosanct and the other illegitimate. I have described why, both practically and Constitutionally, the pro-Second Amendment argument is much stronger than the pro-Roe argument.
We do not disagree regarding the moral belief. We disagree regarding the authority of the state to compel a woman to reproduce, in order to protect a fetus that cannot yet survive on its own. There is no answer I can give that will satisfy you that the fetus is undeserving of protection, especially if you ascribe to the fetus a soul.
I do believe the fetus has a soul but I wouldn't argue that law can be based on that belief, although it is just as compelling as the belief in dignity referenced by Kennedy in Obergefell. I would argue that the fetus has DNA distinct from that of its mother and is therefore a human being, consequently deserving of the most fundamental right, the right to live.
But we have chosen to create a secular Republic, with a Constitution predicated on protecting the individual rights of the living. It is harsh to say so, but the Constitution does not protect non-viable fetuses, except as derivative of the rights of the mother. So an armed robbery gone awry can result in two victims, when a mother and fetus are killed. The mother's rights included her expectation that her growing child would have the state's protection. But vis a vis the mother herself, the situation of Solomon emerges. A choice must be made - is the woman's right of self-determination more important than the fetus' right to life?
I don't think the State can make that choice. I think the woman, and her support system of partner, family and community should she engage it, must make that choice. And so my regular mantra is - persuasion, not coercion.
I agree that persuasion is superior to coercion. So I'll ask you again, why do we coerce our fellow citizens on the questions of murder, rape, robbery, and slavery? Why coerce the baker? Why does the state get to make *those* choices, none of which are any more significant than the question of a distinct human life?
-
History puts the lie to you. Marriage is not the answer in many cases, and when it is not, only a sadist would insist that failed marriages be maintained because of some ideological belief of his.
Oddly enough, my views are not based in religious ideology for this issue and the abortion issue. Of course, I believe the Religious Right's view to be correct, but my view is housed mainly where philosophy intersects law, and is informed by history far before even the advent of the Protestantism to which I adhere...
A lifelong contract that can be summarily dismissed is rendered utterly moot - the contract being without effect. Marriage is a hard thing, and requires a ton of commitment. It is meant to span generations and provide stability and provision to youth and the bounty of provision to the elderly. It's dissolution is disaster. To provide 'easy out' to contracts is always a poor way, and a marriage contract is no different. In fact, there is no contract among men that should be more meaningful. Broken homes destroy lives in multiple generations.
As to abortion, a nation that bases itself in the enumerated right to God-given life, that will not protect the most innocent of us all is nothing but a caricature.
The only way that our government can legally sanction taking life is through just cause and due process - neither of which is found in an abortion. When you can show me where the federal government or any of the various states can take your life otherwise, that is when I will ponder whether is has the right to sanction against the life of that child.
-
Oddly enough, my views are not based in religious ideology for this issue and the abortion issue. Of course, I believe the Religious Right's view to be correct, but my view is housed mainly where philosophy intersects law, and is informed by history far before even the advent of the Protestantism to which I adhere...
A lifelong contract that can be summarily dismissed is rendered utterly moot - the contract being without effect. Marriage is a hard thing, and requires a ton of commitment. It is meant to span generations and provide stability and provision to youth and the bounty of provision to the elderly. It's dissolution is disaster. To provide 'easy out' to contracts is always a poor way, and a marriage contract is no different. In fact, there is no contract among men that should be more meaningful. Broken homes destroy lives in multiple generations.
As to abortion, a nation that bases itself in the enumerated right to God-given life, that will not protect the most innocent of us all is nothing but a caricature.
The only way that our government can legally sanction taking life is through just cause and due process - neither of which is found in an abortion. When you can show me where the federal government or any of the various states can take your life otherwise, that is when I will ponder whether is has the right to sanction against the life of that child.
Your views are informed by a very unreal, even surreal, view of human nature and the effects of marriage. And no, a contract that can be terminated by either party solely by giving notice to the other party is not a nullity for that reason. Plenty of contracts have just such provisions in them and they are bona fide contracts just as much as any other contract.
And due process is not the magic sword you seem to think it is, either. Due process is a flexible concept and what it requires varies very greatly depending on the circumstances. It most certainly does not justify or support a State’s attempt to make abortion illegal. That violates the rights of the woman involved.
-
@Oceander
Says you, the court was split, Justice White said it wasn't in the constitution.
https://www.scribd.com/document/217330653/Dissent-White (https://www.scribd.com/document/217330653/Dissent-White)
I guess, if one always assumes the SCOTUS makes the correct decision, they have no problem with slavery either.
-
@Oceander
Says you, the court was split, Justice White said it wasn't in the constitution.
https://www.scribd.com/document/217330653/Dissent-White (https://www.scribd.com/document/217330653/Dissent-White)
I guess, if one always assumes the SCOTUS makes the correct decision, they have no problem with slavery either.
The only concrete statement I’ve made in this regard is that the Constitution does not make abortion illegal. And it does not. You will not find one provision in the Constitution that makes abortion illegal.
Instead, I have spent my time trying to establish certain ground lines that are necessar before one can profitably turn to evaluating Roe v. Wade, and establishing that all here accept that causing another person’s death is not the same thing as murdering that person - if it were, then all self-defense that led to lethal results would opal facto be murder - the reason being that simply labeling abortion as murder adds nothing to the discussion and flinging the word around is designed simply to shut down conversation, the same way that liberals intend to shut down a conversation when they start flinging around the word racism.
Obviously, a fool’s errand on my part, because nobody here appears to want to have any sort of a discussion; they’ve made their minds up and all they want now is group validation. Another failing that is all too common amongst liberals.
Such is life. As far as overturning Roe v. Wade goes, however, I would point only to Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). In that case, the Supreme Court was squarely faced with the prospect of overruling Miranda v. Arizona. Specifically, the Court was faced with the question of whether the so-called Miranda warnings were required by the Constitution.
The Court chose not to, even though there were significant questions regarding the exact basis on which the warnings were constitutionally required, and acknowledged that they went beyond the requirements of voluntariness, which is the the basis for determining whether the Fifth Amendment has been violated. That is, the Constitution only requires that a confession not be coerced, and the test for that is whether under all the facts and circumstances the confession was voluntary, not whether the defendant had been advised of his rights.
The Courts reasoning for this was that the Court that decided Miranda itself clearly believed it was announcing a constitutional ruling, the case had been consistently applied that way over many years in many different contexts, including in state court cases, application of the holding in Miranda was relatively straight forward, and the Miranda warnings had become part and parcel of the broader legal and cultural landscape.
The only two justices who dissented from Dickerson were Scalia and Thomas. Of course, with Kennedy’s retirement, the only justice left who was in the majority is Ginsburg.
Roe v. Wade has many of the same factors in its favor that Miranda had, although there are differences. Nonetheless, it seems to me that Dickerson, and the arguments underlying its rationale, will be used to uphold Roe v. Wade if it comes to it.
-
Like I said, maybe they should have had better lawyers.
And just whom do you expect to pay for the care and feeding of these “men’s†offspring? Letting them go without paying doesn’t make the child go away and simply shifts those costs to someone else, like the rest of us, who clearly played no role in the creation of their children.
In this country, there is such a large demand to adopt children, people will pay medical expenses before the birth, even some living allowances have been justified.
There is no reason to be stuck with a newborn you don't want and cannot afford. People are literally paying to wait in line for that opportunity.
-
In this country, there is such a large demand to adopt children, people will pay medical expenses before the birth, even some living allowances have been justified.
There is no reason to be stuck with a newborn you don't want and cannot afford. People are literally paying to wait in line for that opportunity.
That’s fine. When the adoptive parents sign up, their parental rights are confirmed, and the genetic father’s rights are terminated, his obligation to pay is also terminated. Until then, no dice.
-
That’s fine. When the adoptive parents sign up, their parental rights are confirmed, and the genetic father’s rights are terminated, his obligation to pay is also terminated. Until then, no dice.
The only reason that does not happen, if the mother chooses not to. It is not a financial burden, unless she chooses it.
The demand to adopt children is so high in the US, people pay tens of thousands of additional dollars, just to arrange it in another country where the children are available.
There is no forced financial burden on a mother to raise a child she did not want, unless she chooses it. To claim financial burden as a reason to allow abortion is dishonest.
-
The only reason that does not happen, if the mother chooses not to. It is not a financial burden, unless she chooses it.
The demand to adopt children is so high in the US, people pay tens of thousands of additional dollars, just to arrange it in another country where the children are available.
There is no forced financial burden on a mother to raise a child she did not want, unless she chooses it. To claim financial burden as a reason to allow abortion is dishonest.
So long as the man’s progeny are out there, and his parental rights have not been terminated, then it is only fair to the rest of us to force him to pay for his progeny. Until another set of parents step in to shoulder the burden, it’s only fair to keep it on him.
-
So long as the man’s progeny are out there, and his parental rights have not been terminated, then it is only fair to the rest of us to force him to pay for his progeny. Until another set of parents step in to shoulder the burden, it’s only fair to keep it on him.
I can agree that the man has to pay for the child. I don't agree the women can kill his child regardless of his desires.
-
I can agree that the man has to pay for the child. I don't agree the women can kill his child regardless of his desires.
It’s not his body that’s involved. Her right to determine what happens to her body trumps his interest in the baby until and unless he can take over the gestation.
-
It’s not his body that’s involved. Her right to determine what happens to her body trumps his interest in the baby until and unless he can take over the gestation.
Her decision to determine what happens to her body started before the sperm met the egg. Her decisions leading up to that point (as well as his) have consequences involving more than just the two of them. The right of the resulting child to live should not be terminated because of conveniences or finances.
-
So long as the man’s progeny are out there, and his parental rights have not been terminated, then it is only fair to the rest of us to force him to pay for his progeny.
Why is it unfair *to the rest of us* whether the financial burden for a child is transferred to people who are willing to accept it? I can see that it might be unfair *to the biological father* to transfer parental rights without his knowledge or consent, but the premise in defense of abortion is usually that the biological father has, or will, willfully avoid fulfilling his responsibility. Why do the rest of us have any interest in keeping the responsibility on the unwilling biological father when there are others willing and able to take on that burden?
Until another set of parents step in to shoulder the burden, it’s only fair to keep it on him.
This is exactly the case @thackney describes, another set of parents has stepped in to shoulder the burden.
BTW @Oceander I am not familiar with the Dickerson case, but your analysis of it seems insightful and trustworthy as a predictor that Roe is unlikely to be reversed.
-
Why is it unfair *to the rest of us* whether the financial burden for a child is transferred to people who are willing to accept it? I can see that it might be unfair *to the biological father* to transfer parental rights without his knowledge or consent, but the premise in defense of abortion is usually that the biological father has, or will, willfully avoid fulfilling his responsibility. Why do the rest of us have any interest in keeping the responsibility on the unwilling biological father when there are others willing and able to take on that burden?
This is exactly the case @thackney describes, another set of parents has stepped in to shoulder the burden.
BTW @Oceander I am not familiar with the Dickerson case, but your analysis of it seems insightful and trustworthy as a predictor that Roe is unlikely to be reversed.
Get the adoptive parents to sign up, and as I said, I have no problem cutting the gutter-snipe free from his obligations. Until that time, the taxpayers will most likely get hit with the bill for paying for his kids. That’s what’s not fair.
-
@HoustonSam
My point there was simply to distinguish an opinion, even of the Supreme Court, from the Constitution itself. Precedent must be respected to prevent the law from becoming unpredictable, but that respect cannot be absolute else we would still be living under Plessy v. Ferguson. Some SC opinions *should* be overturned.
Yes, but those tend, historically, to be decisions that effect injustice because they represent the denial of natural rights. Overturning a decision that affirmatively recognizes a natural right should be the job of the peoples' elected representatives (e.g., by the passage of a Constitutional amendment). That's especially the case when the right or liberty so recognized has been relied upon for decades. How is it not judicial activism to take away a woman's ability to decide her future at such a late date?
(And come to think of it, how is it not judicial activism to take away the individual RKBA conferred by Heller? Respect for precedent protects both the liberties you favor as well as those you despise.)
I dispute that parenthood is more fundamental to a woman than to a man. Perhaps the nine months of pregnancy are more fundamental to a woman, but the following 18 years of support, with the alternative being judicial punishment, are more fundamental to a man. Yet our laws afford absolute deference to the former and no consideration at all of the latter, on the argument that if the man can't live with the consequences then he "should have kept his pants zipped." The same should be said of the woman.
The woman must be the decider. It is her body, it is either her blessing or her burden. Hindsight is 20/20 - both parties to a coupling that ends in abortion should have stood down. But it is simply unworkable for a man to, as a legal matter, have the ability to force the woman to carry to term a child she doesn't want. The man must do what we all must do - try to persuade, and offer support.
And neither parenthood, nor the nine months of pregnancy, nor the 18 years of child support, are more fundamental than the very right to life of the third party in the equation, the child.
I don't disagree. But again, in this admittedly imperfect scenario there must be a decider. It is not the man, and it certainly cannot be the State. Something is growing within the woman's body. She must have the liberty to decide. There's simply no other option.
Although I'm not an attorney I appreciate your analysis, described elsewhere, that the RKBA is actually in legal jeopardy. As a question of fact I agree with you. As a question of principle and the plain meaning of words I believe such a decision would drive further the contempt for the judiciary I have mentioned earlier. Stated differently, the *subject* clause of the Second Amendment says "the right of the *people*", not "the right of the *militia*", and everyone who can read can plainly see that.
I am of the view that Heller was correctly decided. But let's not forget that its critics consider it a case of judicial activism, no less so than Roe v. Wade. Heller's critics believe that a Court majority read out of the Second Amendment its predicate clause. I counsel the same remedy for Heller as for Roe - if the People agree with the ruling - or disagree with it - then codify or overturn the results by means of a Constitutional amendment.
If a SCOTUS with Merrick Garland in the majority had this year overturned Heller and held the 2A does not protect an individual RKBA, you would be as upset with that decision as would millions of American woman should an "activist" SCOTUS next year have the temerity of taking their liberty away.
-
@HoustonSam
Yes, but those tend, historically, to be decisions that effect injustice because they represent the denial of natural rights. Overturning a decision that affirmatively recognizes a natural right should be the job of the peoples' elected representatives (e.g., by the passage of a Constitutional amendment). That's especially the case when the right or liberty so recognized has been relied upon for decades. How is it not judicial activism to take away a woman's ability to decide her future at such a late date?
(And come to think of it, how is it not judicial activism to take away the individual RKBA conferred by Heller? Respect for precedent protects both the liberties you favor as well as those you despise.)
The fundamental question in the abortion debate is whether the right of a woman to abortion is more fundamental than the right of the fetus to live. I've argued that the 9 months a woman spends pregnant is less significant and fundamental to her than the entire life of the fetus being aborted is to that fetus. Setting aside a pregnancy which actually threatens the woman's life, for which I would permit abortion, I believe it is self-evident that one person's entire life is more significant than 9 months of another person's life. Your response however begs the question, arguing that abortion is a natural right because of Roe and entirely overlooking the natural right to life of the fetus.
As an aside, how does one distinguish a "natural" right? Is there some other kind of right?
The woman must be the decider. It is her body, it is either her blessing or her burden. Hindsight is 20/20 - both parties to a coupling that ends in abortion should have stood down. But it is simply unworkable for a man to, as a legal matter, have the ability to force the woman to carry to term a child she doesn't want. The man must do what we all must do - try to persuade, and offer support.
It is not only her body.
I'm not aware that anyone is arguing that a man should have the legal authority to force a woman to carry a fetus to term. The pro-life movement argues that the fetus is a human being and should be protected by the law, not by either parent's choice.
Why is it morally workable for the woman's unilateral decision, over which the man has zero legal influence, to have complete legal influence over the next 18 years of the man's life? Here again you are simply ignoring, not refuting, the position contrary to your own.
I don't disagree. But again, in this admittedly imperfect scenario there must be a decider. It is not the man, and it certainly cannot be the State. Something is growing within the woman's body. She must have the liberty to decide. There's simply no other option.
The "something" growing in her body has 23 chromosomes and DNA distinct from her own. The only possible definition of that "something" is "distinct human being." There absolutely is another option. You might vehemently disagree with that other option, but another option does in fact exist.
I am of the view that Heller was correctly decided. But let's not forget that its critics consider it a case of judicial activism, no less so than Roe v. Wade. Heller's critics believe that a Court majority read out of the Second Amendment its predicate clause. I counsel the same remedy for Heller as for Roe - if the People agree with the ruling - or disagree with it - then codify or overturn the results by means of a Constitutional amendment.
If a SCOTUS with Merrick Garland in the majority had this year overturned Heller and held the 2A does not protect an individual RKBA, you would be as upset with that decision as would millions of American woman should an "activist" SCOTUS next year have the temerity of taking their liberty away.
Without a clear definition of "judicial activism" we can't accomplish anything by arguing that one decision or another was or would be "judicial activism." I argue that "judicial activism" is the court maintaining that the law does not mean what it clearly does say (which is frequently the case for gun control), or that it does mean what it clearly does not say (which was the case for Roe). That the losing side will label a decision "judicial activism" is not a valid criticism of the decision absent a definition of the charge. Nor are the emotions of the losing side a valid reference of justice or constitutionality; some of my ancestors had intense emotional reactions to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka; to those emotions neither validity nor sympathy accrue.
Finally @Jazzhead , I'll ask you for a third time, why can the state impose a moral judgment for murder, rape, theft, and slavery, but not for abortion? Why is the state not required to respect the "choice" of the murderer, rapist, thief, or slave owner? None of the them are committing an act any more significant than the ending of a human life, which is the outcome of an abortion.
-
The fundamental question in the abortion debate is whether the right of a woman to abortion is more fundamental than the right of the fetus to live. I've argued that the 9 months a woman spends pregnant is less significant and fundamental to her than the entire life of the fetus being aborted is to that fetus.
@HoustonSam , I answer that question the same way you do as a moral matter. There are just two problems with that - I am a man, and I can't bear the burden of the woman I may criticize for answering the question differently than I do. But the more serious problem is that the law does not and cannot proscribe immorality. It is not its job. Generally speaking, the law enforces obligations between individuals voluntarily assumed, and proscribes the violation of one individual's legal rights by another. But lots of morally questionable acts are not against the law. Here, the practical problem is that the fetus does not, certainly not before it has become viable, have legal rights as an individual vis a vis the mother. It is the relationship of the mother and fetus that the law attempts to control, and the law isn't cut out for the task. The fetus is not physically independent of the mother's body. The woman's liberty (self-determination) must prevail over a portion of her own body.
I've actually thought about this, and considered whether the law can assign a duty of care - akin to that of a fiduciary - to a mother toward her growing child. A fiduciary obligation must, however, be voluntarily assumed. I could support the notion of a mother, having had a prescribed period of time to reject the responsibility, being impressed with the duty to do her potential child no harm. That's certainly the case once birth occurs. A baby, once born, cannot be discarded in the trash without the woman facing charges.
Finally @Jazzhead , I'll ask you for a third time, why can the state impose a moral judgment for murder, rape, theft, and slavery, but not for abortion? Why is the state not required to respect the "choice" of the murderer, rapist, thief, or slave owner? None of the them are committing an act any more significant than the ending of a human life, which is the outcome of an abortion.
The answer is simple but not particularly satisfactory. A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis its mother. It is not independent of the mother. The question is one of personal morality, one of those thorny questions of conscience the resolution of which cannot be compelled by the State.
This is a moral question that each woman must decide for herself.
-
This is America, this is the process, a President is elected, he makes choices.
He nominates Supreme Court Justices.
This is America, we have freedom OF religion, not from religion.
This is America, we have 50 states with their rights to legislate law.
Perhaps, one's views are out of step with the American way.
-
@HoustonSam , I answer that question the same way you do as a moral matter. There are just two problems with that - I am a man, and I can't bear the burden of the woman I may criticize for answering the question differently than I do.
Nor do you bear the burden of the baker, but you have no hesitation to call for the force of law to be applied to him. I'm not trying to tweak you on the baker issue @Jazzhead, you and I had a very good discussion a couple of weeks ago and I still appreciate the critical thought you put into some potential legal reasoning consistent with my point of view. I just want to understand how you distinguish cases in which you are willing to invoke the force of law from those in which you defer to the conscience of the individual. I distinguish them on the basis of the harm done to the person whose decisions are constrained and the person on whom those decisions have an impact. The baker's would-be homosexual customers suffered minimal harm, actually I would argue none, in shopping at a different bakery for a cake, while the baker would have been forced to endorse a belief he found odious and contrary to his faith. The pregnant woman experiences 9 months of pregnancy, which is very significant, while the fetus loses it life, which is existentially more significant.
Is it your position that a man's belief on abortion is inherently less valuable than a woman's belief because only a woman can be pregnant? More generally, if an experience is only available to a subset of the population, is it inherently wrong to address that experience in law?
If so, why are there laws against rape? Crude jokes aside, only men are really capable of committing rape, women simply can't do it. So why do we impose a forced morality on all men through laws against rape? Of what value is the moral belief of a woman regarding an experience she simply cannot have? Why do we not defer to men, as individuals, to make their own decisions about rape?
Of course the suggestion that we should repeal laws against rape and defer to the conscience of individual men is intentionally provocative and absurd. However it is based on the same premise you've taken with regard to abortion - I can't impose a moral belief on someone regarding an experience I can't have, therefore the law should defer to the conscience of the individual who can have that experience - and it demonstrates the flaw in the position you've taken. The argument you've made is extremely familiar and compelling to many, but neither its familiarity nor its wide acceptance make it valid.
As an additional aside, it seems that people will be able to choose their sex and reproductive capabilities through therapy and surgery in the future. Will it always be the case that men's beliefs on abortion are unworthy of consideration in law?
But the more serious problem is that the law does not and cannot proscribe immorality. It is not its job. Generally speaking, the law enforces obligations between individuals voluntarily assumed, and proscribes the violation of one individual's legal rights by another.
Contracts enforce agreements voluntarily assumed, but all law is not contracts. Murder, rape, theft, and slavery are illegal because a majority believes they are wrong, not because we all entered into agreements to that effect. The slave owners in no sense entered into a voluntary agreement to manumit their slaves, yet slavery ended by law.
But lots of morally questionable acts are not against the law.
Which *other* morally questionable acts, other than abortion, result in the death of a distinct human being? I'm pretty sure it's none. Of course we recognize that all don't agree on moral standards, so we provide deference to each other in law regarding those moral standards, unless an innocent party is harmed involuntarily.
Here, the practical problem is that the fetus does not, certainly not before it has become viable, have legal rights as an individual vis a vis the mother. It is the relationship of the mother and fetus that the law attempts to control, and the law isn't cut out for the task. The fetus is not physically independent of the mother's body. The woman's liberty (self-determination) must prevail over a portion of her own body.
I agree that the law does not recognize rights of the non-viable fetus. But the question here is not what the law *does* say, rather what it *should* say. One cannot validly justify the current content of the law by referencing the current content of the law.
And while the fetus is dependent on the woman's body, it is not a portion of the woman's body. The fetus has independent DNA.
I've actually thought about this, and considered whether the law can assign a duty of care - akin to that of a fiduciary - to a mother toward her growing child. A fiduciary obligation must, however, be voluntarily assumed. I could support the notion of a mother, having had a prescribed period of time to reject the responsibility, being impressed with the duty to do her potential child no harm. That's certainly the case once birth occurs. A baby, once born, cannot be discarded in the trash without the woman facing charges.
That's a fair distinction. How does that distinction apply to a man? At what point does he voluntarily take on fiduciary responsibility, and at what point is he shielded from that responsibility because he has not volunteered for it? Does the man fully volunteer for fiduciary responsibility at the point of conception? If so, is it your position that the woman has additional rights, rights inherently unavailable to the man, to postpone that decision by 9 months? Would that be equality before the law?
The answer is simple but not particularly satisfactory. A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis its mother. It is not independent of the mother. The question is one of personal morality, one of those thorny questions of conscience the resolution of which cannot be compelled by the State.
This is a moral question that each woman must decide for herself.
You'll see clearly from my statements above that I accept your premise that the law in fact does not recognize legal rights of the pre-viable fetus, and I reject the conclusions you draw from that premise.
Jazzhead you and I are clashing directly here, but I feel that we are doing so with personal respect for each other. I hope you feel the same. You are an interesting and compelling opponent, clearly motivated by an enviable sense of humanity and respect for others, and I wish you the best.