Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 57 of 57

Thread: New York celebrates legalizing abortion until birth

  1. #51
    God, family, chicken! Bill the Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Central VA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,569
    Amen (Given)
    7978
    Amen (Received)
    8241
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think SCOTUS would recognize that's not in their purview.
    Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, murder is a state crime, and each state gets to determine the punishment for it.


    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals --- Manya the Holy Szin --- The Quintara Marathon ---

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common --- Stephen R. Donaldson ---

  2. #52
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,561
    Amen (Given)
    11881
    Amen (Received)
    25303
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, murder is a state crime, and each state gets to determine the punishment for it.
    Yes, the notable exception being - If, however, the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  3. Amen Bill the Cat amen'd this post.
  4. #53
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,561
    Amen (Given)
    11881
    Amen (Received)
    25303
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Yes, the notable exception being - If, however, the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction.
    The "crossing state borders" could be interesting -- if a person goes to another state to murder their child...
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  5. #54
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,881
    Amen (Given)
    4989
    Amen (Received)
    22115
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think SCOTUS would recognize that's not in their purview.
    Aren't they basically doing that now?

  6. #55
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,561
    Amen (Given)
    11881
    Amen (Received)
    25303
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Aren't they basically doing that now?
    I think many people realize that RvW was a flawed ruling, and I hope we have learned from that.


    Historical Misinterpretation in Roe v. Wade


    After nearly thirty years, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and its repercussions continue to rile divisive passions across America. As an unprecedented federal abortion ruling, it overturned longstanding anti-abortion laws in each of the fifty states and announced a departure from American mores. Roe fundamentally altered the terms of the abortion dialogue by asserting a federal power over what had been understood as a state right. To justify the federal ruling, the Court argued that abortion was a constitutional right; to justify the break with tradition, it explained abortion as a historically accepted practice. However, Roe sets forth a terse and incomplete view of abortion in history, omitting recalcitrant facts. Further, it employs the Fourteenth Amendment recklessly: the Court misrepresents its meaning and never demonstrates its relevance to abortion....
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  7. #56
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,561
    Amen (Given)
    11881
    Amen (Received)
    25303
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think many people realize that RvW was a flawed ruling, and I hope we have learned from that.


    Historical Misinterpretation in Roe v. Wade


    After nearly thirty years, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and its repercussions continue to rile divisive passions across America. As an unprecedented federal abortion ruling, it overturned longstanding anti-abortion laws in each of the fifty states and announced a departure from American mores. Roe fundamentally altered the terms of the abortion dialogue by asserting a federal power over what had been understood as a state right. To justify the federal ruling, the Court argued that abortion was a constitutional right; to justify the break with tradition, it explained abortion as a historically accepted practice. However, Roe sets forth a terse and incomplete view of abortion in history, omitting recalcitrant facts. Further, it employs the Fourteenth Amendment recklessly: the Court misrepresents its meaning and never demonstrates its relevance to abortion....
    from that same cite...

    While the Roe Court claims interest in historical attitudes, it directly affronts the traditional consensus, Western culture, and, most grievously, American state laws and mores shared nationwide.

    While the Roe Court claims that permissive abortion culture and laws surround the 1868 Amendment, that era held a public, medical, and legislative agreement that feticide was murder.

    While the Roe Court claims that abortion is among personal liberties, no amendments intended to, or are equipped to, broach the abortion issue.

    Perhaps abortion is a requisite right for a free and pluralistic society, but if so it should be introduced according to the proper governmental channels. In a democracy where representatives of the people vote general principles into law and the judiciary is commissioned to apply those principles to individual cases, it is unlawful and contrary to the good order of society for the judicial branch to introduce new and unintended principles. The Supreme Court should have declined to hear Roe v. Wade, allowing the proper legislative channels or Constitutional amendment procedures to democratically consider proper abortive rights.


    This is the kind of abuse of the system one gets when you have activist judges. So glad Hillary is not POTUS and SCOTUS is not Hillary's.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  8. #57
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,759
    Amen (Given)
    221
    Amen (Received)
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think many people realize that RvW was a flawed ruling, and I hope we have learned from that.
    Even at the time, people were calling out for how absurd a decision it was, even those who would have liked to see its resulted achieved by legislation. I posted it in another topic, but I still heartily recommend the article "The Wages of Crying Wolf" that was issued the same year as Roe v. Wade (as a response). It is out of date in a few areas. Its argument of "if a right to privacy is so strong that abortion cannot be prohibited, then why in the world are laws banning sodomy or drug use allowed?" is partially obviated by Lawrence v. Texas (its point concerning drug use is still valid), and its criticism of the trimester framework for allowance of abortion restrictions, while a valid criticism of Roe v. Wade, is no longer applicable because Planned Parenthood v. Casey dispensed with that and replaced it with the more arbitrary but more reasonable "undue burden" standard. But other than that, I think it holds up very well.

    An especially good passage:
    Of course a woman's freedom to choose an abortion is part of the "liberty" the Fourteenth Amendment says shall not be denied without due process of law, as indeed is anyone's freedom to do what he wants. But "due process" generally guarantees only that the inhibition be procedurally fair and that it have some "rational" connection-though plausible is probably a better word-with a permissible governmental goal. What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded a far more stringent protection, so stringent that a desire to preserve the fetus's existence is unable to overcome it-a protection more stringent, I think it fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure.


    Anyone who doesn't want to read through the 30-some pages of the article (to be fair, a lot of that is footnotes...) and wants a shorter refutation can see Justice Rehnquist's dissent in the original decision.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 02-05-2019 at 11:03 PM.

  9. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •