Page 60 of 69 FirstFirst ... 10505859606162 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 687

Thread: Why I Voted For Trump...

  1. #591
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,426
    Amen (Given)
    12067
    Amen (Received)
    25778
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Again,
    Stating the same crap over and over does not make it truer, Tassy.

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

    When an egg and a sperm unite, a new unique being is created with its very own DNA. What type of being is it? Obviously, it's a HUMAN BEING.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  2. #592
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,426
    Amen (Given)
    12067
    Amen (Received)
    25778
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There’s no problem. Roe v Wade already addresses the needs...
    You keep citing Roe V Wade like it's sacred. (No doubt, to you, it is)

    Roe V Wade was a terribly flawed decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    North Carolina Law Review, 1985

    Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


    Benjamin Wittes — Washington Post

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

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


    Richard Cohen — Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School

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

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


    Got that, Tass? HONEST Pro-choicers...
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  3. Amen Terraceth, NorrinRadd amen'd this post.
  4. #593
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,444
    Amen (Given)
    2492
    Amen (Received)
    1802
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You keep citing Roe V Wade like it's sacred. (No doubt, to you, it is)
    No. I “keep citing Roe V Wade” because it’s the Law of the Land, which the anti-abortionists want to overturn.

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

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

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

  5. #594
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,444
    Amen (Given)
    2492
    Amen (Received)
    1802
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post

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

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

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

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

  6. #595
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,803
    Amen (Given)
    224
    Amen (Received)
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    No. I “keep citing Roe V Wade” because it’s the Law of the Land, which the anti-abortionists want to overturn.
    Plessy v. Ferguson was also law of the land, which the anti-segregationists wanted to overturn.

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

    In the opinion of some, not the majority.

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

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

  7. #596
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,444
    Amen (Given)
    2492
    Amen (Received)
    1802
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    A survey of people where most of them whose knowledge begins and ends with "Roe v. Wade made abortion legal" (without any knowledge of the specifics or the reasoning) doesn't mean anything at all as to the decision not being flawed.
    It is “flawed” only for those whose religious ideology opposes abortion.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  8. #597
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,426
    Amen (Given)
    12067
    Amen (Received)
    25778
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    No. I “keep citing Roe V Wade” because it’s the Law of the Land, which the anti-abortionists want to overturn.
    It became the law of the land because abortionists pushed activist judges to create "rights" that were not in the Constitution.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  9. #598
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,426
    Amen (Given)
    12067
    Amen (Received)
    25778
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    The issue is when this “new unique being” attains all the rights and protections of a person.
    In your opinion. But you have quite a track record of being wrong. Stop being such a science denier!
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  10. #599
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,426
    Amen (Given)
    12067
    Amen (Received)
    25778
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    It is “flawed” only for those whose religious ideology opposes abortion.
    “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
    North Carolina Law Review, 1985
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  11. #600
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,695
    Amen (Given)
    1690
    Amen (Received)
    1476
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

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

Posting Permissions

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