Bolding mine.
No, Blalron. Conservative judges are simply strict constructionists. It’s those liberal judges that are activists.
Wait a second.
The OP was presumably in favor of the process of sweeping changes being made by the Supreme COurt in 1972 in Roe v. Wade.
What’s wrong with the process now?
Or is the OP saying that they like the idea of the Supreme Court making new law only as long as it’s law she agrees with?
If you sign on to the model of the courts making law, it seems to me you’ve got to accept the outcome of that process as valid even when you disagree with the results.
Otherwise the rant boils down to, “Waah. Things aren’t going my way.”
Was that directed at me, Bricker?
Not so fast. Not everyone believes that is the central question. Many believe that “when does a group of cells constitute a human being?” and “at what point do I surrender to the government control over my bodily processes?” as equally central questions.
ShibbOleth, that is just what the raindog said, but with spin. There is the alternate questions that arises from those who believe that it is a human life from the time of conception, but they still have the right to do as they please with their own bodies, despite the consequence to others.
Even if that degree of bodily control means ending another human life. That is, if it’s true that they don’t consider the question, “When does life begin?” to be of primary importance.
No, at the OP.
Probably the best point for the pro-life group, and it’s nice to see you sensibly stating a position with which you don’t agree, Blalron. It’s something I try to do when I can see the logic of “the opposition” even though I don’t agree with it, and kudos for doing it too!
Is there a definition, even de facto, for personhood that’s being used today? I’m unimpressed with the idea that a conceptus has the same legal rights as an adult human being – but has birth been explicitly defined as the dividing line for personhood in any court case?
Bricker, I presume you’ve taken a vow of poverty and are accepting no new cases? I can tolerate a layman saying “don’t let judges make law” but as a legal professional, you ought to know better. Or do you just give evidence in cases and refuse to ask the judge to rule in your client’s favor, since that is clearly “making law” in the case law sense?
Quite simply, anyone who doesn’t like judges interpreting the Constitution’s broad phrasing as they swore oaths to do faithfully, ought to either be campaigning to get judicial review abolished – and if so, explain who ought to be the person(s) to say what the Constitution means if not the judges (and if you want any support for that, it better not be the pork-barrelling, lobbyist-kissing Congresscritters) – or get the Constitution amended to a thick book that spells out every detail of every right that anyone has and anticipates every possible scenario that might possibly happen whatsoever.
“Making law” is what judges do – every time they fine someone for or dismiss a traffic ticket, they’re setting precedent that is case law.
Very well put Polycarp. I’m as unimpressed as you are about this. It seems to go hand-in-hand with ideas concerning the rights that some people insist illegal aliens possess.
If I recall correctly, Roe vs Wade defined the dividing line as ‘the quickening’, which is when you can more or less feel the baby move. It’s got a basis of some sort in common law and history.
I am so not rereading Roe tonight.
If it is, then that’s the price we pay for freedom. Acceptable losses. Just like a free Iraq is worth a few thousand random dead civilians.
The question to me is more one of “when is life valuable”? Sentience is what makes life valuable. Having a beating heart and human DNA isn’t enough. If I were forced to choose whether to save a sentient android like Commander Data from Star Trek or a human fetus, I’d choose Data without hesitation.
So to your mind, taking an innocent life in the name of “bodily freedom” is nothing more than “an acceptable loss”? That it’s okay to kill an innocent life, if this gives you greater bodily control? Great googly moogly.
At least you’re bold enough to make such a bald assertion on a public forum.
Fine. Relevant, if you insist, but still cliched, intellectually lazy, and flat-out offensive. It seems like the only thing blacks are good for these days is as a cheap analogy for whatever somebody feels like debating. Legalized abortion is like legalized black slavery / anti-choice is like black disenfranchisment - get over that! Have a little shame and try to put a tad bit more thought into coming up with a relevant point for your position. You know, like the screamingly obvious comparison to female disenfranchisement that ended only last century.
Abe said:
Well… to a person my black friends are indeed offended at using their struggle to make a case for gay rights or for abortion. But to your point…
I mean no disrespect here, but I’m a little incredulous that you’re suggesting that a legitimate correlation can be made between abortion and the struggle for black’s civil rights simply because both groups had their “rights” restricted. That’s the lowest possible hurdle, and unless you’re holding back something more compelling I would imagine it would be a useful analogy for pedophiles and prostitutes and any other group whose “rights” are restricted.
The treatment of blacks in this country was appalling and represents the darkest hours in our history. Forty full years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the images of that era evoke strong images. And what was the intellectual and/or moral rationale for denying blacks their full civil rights? Racism. Plain and simple.
There never was a legitimate moral or intellectual basis to support it, and other than fringe groups like the KKK/Aryan Nation there is no one advocating the resoration of the Jim Crow laws. No one.
The “right” to an abortion enjoys no such moral or intellectual certainty, and to this day, 30 years after Roe v Wade, there are still many thoughtful, intelligent, moral people who can make more than a compelling case that abortion is a similar stain on our collective consciousness. No such case can be made for restricting the rights of African Americans. As to validanalogies (i.e. Ones that use a higher standard than the notion that 2 different groups had their “rights” restricted) one might compare the civil rights struggle to the suffragette movement, not the abortion rights movement.
To the extent that the central question as to when life begins remains unanswered, Abortion will remain controversial and will remain in moral and intellectual quicksand. But to trot out the civil rights era as an analogy, is either intellectually inept or dishonest.
As a people we may also one day “look back with shame to the days” when our society devalued life to the point that everything in our society became throwaway; including the babies from our mother’s wombs. We may marvel at the rapid transformation of technology and see both it’s tremondous benefits to mankind and it’s tremondous abuses. I would imagine that abortion and the waging of war would be things of wonder. I think we may also look back and see a society where the sense of personal responsibility was abandoned for individual freedom and the irony that we became enslaved in the process. We may also see that selfisness reigned supreme. To quote another poster on this board,* “Stop me from having an abortion and I have an unwanted baby on my hands.”*
I didn’t bring up the abuses dealt to African Americans. It has no business in this discussion, and shouldn’t be used as a prop to make an intellectually dubious argument.
I’m certainly willing to respectfully tackle the issue of abortion head on. But I have a general aversion to those who align themselves, or their cause, with the civil rights struggle where no such credible link exists. You’ve repackaged Blalron’s words wonderfully, but offered us nothing more than, “Here we have large groups of persons whose rights are restricted by other people…” I’m sorry, but that seems to me to be intellectually vacuous.
PS: I’ve always heard that correcting spelling errors on internet bulletin boards was poor form and somewhat juvenile. Maybe I have that wrong. And, “the” is spelled “the.” 
FTR I didn’t see pizzabrat’s post before I posted mine. If I recall correctly, she is an African Americam female, and it would appear is too offended at using the civil rights as political currency.
The struggle for women’s rights during the suffragette movement is an appropriate analogy, and that struggle predated the civil rights era by 40ish years. (Although carried on through other struggles like the ERA)
The argument for a “woman’s right to choose” needs to stand on it’s own merits and doesn’t need or deserve Rosa Parks as a surrogate spokesperson.
HE is MALE.
oops…sorry!
Are you a female? There seems to be almost none at all here.
Why is this so?
All you feminist-socialists males answer this!
You can’t, can you? Unless you are bisexual - then answer!
I dare you!
once again, an analogy is useful to illustrate points that share similarity, not differences (however many there may be). The analogy as broken down says nothing at all about rhetorical exploitation of the misery and hardships of blacks, or drawing parallels that go beyond the simple comparison offered. The analogy describes a situation in which a set of people has their rights controlled by another set of people; it doesn’t necessarily say anything about the legitimacy, justification, reasoning, or morality of either gaining the black vote in America or the right for women to decide whether to have abortions. At the most, you may criticize Blalron for issuing an analogy that is somewhat loaded, however taken at face value I see very little if anything at all offensive in the handful of words you took issue with.
Such is the analogy: forced restriction of rights and freedoms, the undesirability of such restriction, and the hope that one day such restrictions will seem as ridiculous as we today we think it is ridiculous to withhold the vote from African Americans. There is an unfortunate tendency, as we have seen, to take simple analogies and craft them into full blown arguments when in fact the originating posters provided no such arguments.
It seems to me the correct response, rather than jump on the poster because you strongly disapprove of abortion, was to ask him what he meant with the analogy, since what you seem to think was implied from one or two lines is in fact not that clear at all.
Juvenile? I pointed out the correct spelling because you repeatedly mispelled “relevant”. Again, you seem to read too much into posts.
without any trepidation whatsoverer(spelt wrong). For there are none here(I mean true females - well perhaps the odd one or two - in which case I salute you) , except bisexual males, who are plenty. They grab all the females they can get. Greedy beings you are! Many of which shout ‘equality’. I loath and despise you creatures.
You have a lot to answer for, for there are great many totally straight men, who have their hearts in their right place, yet see every day females stolen for their(the bisexuals) own sefish purposes, whilst pure men can only weep at this, and despair. Now wonder the word is evil!