Donraj doesn't understand how the government works

[Donraj]

Dang. I leave for one year and the whole place falls apart.

Well, I voted for Blanco, and truth be told I agree with her on this. She's doing what the majority of the state wants and that's what an elected official should do.

I'm kind of odd in that I'm for legal abortion but I'm against Roe vs. Wade, for two reasons. One, I think the arguments the court gave are a load of crap. Whether you think abortion should be legal or not I think we can all agree that its basically a moral issue and that it centers around the question of whether or not a fetus is a person entitled to the same basic rights and legal protections as any kid on the street, and if it is whether the right of the woman in question to control over her on body outweigh its' rights. Roe vs. Wade did fuck all to address that. They completely side-stepped the question and made it into a privacy issue.

Second, I don't think the Supreme Court had a right to decide the matter. Even if you think that abortion should be legal and even considered a basic human right, as I do, if you're going to be intellectually honest about it you should admit that the Constitution really doesn't say anything on the subject of whether or not a fetus is a person. And if you want to go back to original intent I really question whether or not anyone wants to seriously claim that the Founders were in favor of legal abortion, or that they would have been anything but shocked and horrified at the idea.

So, yeah, I want abortion to be legal, but I support Blanco’s decision and I actually wish they’d gone further and stated that the law would take effect even with Roe vs. Wade. Because I can’t in good conscious agree with what was basically a giant “Fuck you redneck” to the rest of the country by a handful of unelected officials who serve for life and have apparently decided they have the right to create laws as well as rule on them. Because, ah, I think that’s a bad precedent to set.

Especially given the sort of people the next few Justices are likely to be.

You know as I do Blanco won because she is white and Jindal isn't.

This is entirely anecdotal, but I heard just the opposite shortly afterwards.

[Admiral Johnason]

The job of the Supreme Court in matters of making law is to decide issues that either the President refuses to act on or that can't get past Congress due to deadlock. They had to make the choice and they did what the nation wanted at the time. And since the Senate votes on them and the President picks them, you can't say that the people don't have a choice on how the court chould be run. Since neither at the time could end the deadlock on the issue, it went before the court. And for the record, the same arguement that you used to say that the court had no right was also used against Brown v Board of Edu.

And the role of government is to ethically run a country while doing their best to represent the people. However, since RvW was a national decision and LA wants to decide for itself what the nation has already made law, the federal government overrides the states.

[Donraj]

And the role of government is to ethically run a country while doing their best to represent the people. However, since RvW was a national decision and LA wants to decide for itself what the nation has already made law, the federal government overrides the states.

I don't dispute that. Actually, I do think that any decision about abortion has to be nationwide, since otherwise it means abortion is effectively legal for anyone who can afford a road trip to California. But since I believe that the national law lacks legitimacy I support Louisiana, and South Dakota for that matter, in trying to force the issue. If abortion is going to be legal it should be made legal by a law passed by Congress, or ideally a constitutional amendment, as unlikely as that is to happen.

The job of the Supreme Court in matters of making law is to decide issues that either the President refuses to act on or that can't get past Congress due to deadlock. They had to make the choice and they did what the nation wanted at the time. And since the Senate votes on them and the President picks them, you can't say that the people don't have a choice on how the court chould be run. Since neither at the time could end the deadlock on the issue, it went before the court.

My understanding has always been that the role of the court is to rule upon existing law. If Congress is deadlocked on the matter it should be allowed to remain that way until the people vote in enough new politicians on one side or the other that it isn't.

And for the record, the same arguement that you used to say that the court had no right was also used against Brown v Board of Edu.

Refresh my memory, since I can't access Wikipedia from here and my history books are all thousands of miles away. If its a racial discrimination or segregation case, which I'm guessing it is, I'd say the difference is that there is an amendment to the Constitution explicitly giving the Court the right to act.

[Admiral Johnason]

The Court has been known to make law before when the Federal governemnt can't reach a decision and the issue needs to be resolved. Hense ending segeration. Congress could do nothing and the Execuative would not act. And at the time, many racists came out as saying that SCOTUS had overstepped their legal boundries. I seem to recall Geroge Wallace and several other notiable racists of the day said something to that effect.


And it is understood by previous Supreme Court decision that SCOTUS can rule on matters beside existing law due to the fact that if they can be shown to affect the Constitution that they can go before the court.

[Darth Wong]

I'm so sick of idiots who complain that the Supreme Court is unelected. The whole fucking POINT of the goddamned thing is to provide one of the checks and balances. If they were elected in exactly the same manner as other politicians, how the fuck would they provide a balance against them?

[CmdrWilkens]

My understanding has always been that the role of the court is to rule upon existing law. If Congress is deadlocked on the matter it should be allowed to remain that way until the people vote in enough new politicians on one side or the other that it isn't.

If an issue arises upon which no previous ruling has been made then courts, in the English Common Law tradition from which the American courts are descended, are EXPECTED to make new law. In fact the term common law refers to the legal principles created by the courts through their rulings and have just as much force as the letter of law written by legislatures and administrative agencies. Basically in any case where there is an unresolved quesiton of law the court is expected to decide what the law is.

[Admiral Johnason]

I'm so sick of idiots who complain that the Supreme Court is unelected. The whole fucking POINT of the goddamned thing is to provide one of the checks and balances. If they were elected in exactly the same manner as other politicians, how the fuck would they provide a balance against them?

I agree, the courts are to be safe from the politics of the day. The right is just pissy that they can't step out all resistance. You think they are bad now, with till the Democrats get Congress back.

[Simplicius]

My understanding has always been that the role of the court is to rule upon existing law. If Congress is deadlocked on the matter it should be allowed to remain that way until the people vote in enough new politicians on one side or the other that it isn't.

In case you hadn't noticed, the central holding of Roe was derived from the Constitution itself, albeit in a convoluted way. The Court went out of its way to make sure that Roe was based on existing law - that most fundamental of existing laws - because of its distaste for pulling rights out of thin air.

[Donraj]

I'm so sick of idiots who complain that the Supreme Court is unelected. The whole fucking POINT of the goddamned thing is to provide one of the checks and balances. If they were elected in exactly the same manner as other politicians, how the fuck would they provide a balance against them?

I don't mind them being unelected when they're sticking to their role in the system. When they start usurping the legislative branch's authority then we suddenly have unelected people also have the same powers as the elected politicians they're supposed to be counter-balancing. Which can only be a bad thing.

In case you hadn't noticed, the central holding of Roe was derived from the Constitution itself, albeit in a convoluted way. The Court went out of its way to make sure that Roe was based on existing law - that most fundamental of existing laws - because of its distaste for pulling rights out of thin air.

And as I said in my first point they made a bullshit argument to try to pretend they were basing it on the Constitution, because claiming that abortion is a Constitutional right while ignoring the basic issue of whether a fetus is a person is completely and utterly retarded. Its in the same line of thought as saying the fundamentalist parents should be able to abuse or kill their children as long as its in the privacy of their own homes. If a fetus is a person and should be entitled to legal protections what the fuck does privacy have to do with it?

The Court has been known to make law before when the Federal governemnt can't reach a decision and the issue needs to be resolved. Hense ending segeration. Congress could do nothing and the Execuative would not act. And at the time, many racists came out as saying that SCOTUS had overstepped their legal boundries. I seem to recall Geroge Wallace and several other notiable racists of the day said something to that effect.


And it is understood by previous Supreme Court decision that SCOTUS can rule on matters beside existing law due to the fact that if they can be shown to affect the Constitution that they can go before the court.

But in the case of ending segregation the court had a clear basis for claiming that it was their business as it did affect the Constitution. Namely, the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. The question brought before the court was whether “Separate but Equal” facilities violated the clauses of the Constitution forbidding racial discrimination. They found, rightly, that it did. There was and is no such basis for the Court to rule on abortion.

If an issue arises upon which no previous ruling has been made then courts, in the English Common Law tradition from which the American courts are descended, are EXPECTED to make new law. In fact the term common law refers to the legal principles created by the courts through their rulings and have just as much force as the letter of law written by legislatures and administrative agencies. Basically in any case where there is an unresolved quesiton of law the court is expected to decide what the law is.

I don’t pretend to know much about legal history and theory. But in Roe vs. Wade there was no unresolved question to rule on. Abortion was illegal in the United States and had been made so by state and (I assume) federal laws on the subject. The court had no grounds to alter those laws unless it could be shown that they violated the Constitution, which I think I’ve shown they didn’t. The court set itself above the legislative branch. And that was a massive abuse of their power and a violation of the whole system of checks and balances.

[Darth Wong]

I'm so sick of idiots who complain that the Supreme Court is unelected. The whole fucking POINT of the goddamned thing is to provide one of the checks and balances. If they were elected in exactly the same manner as other politicians, how the fuck would they provide a balance against them?

I don't mind them being unelected when they're sticking to their role in the system. When they start usurping the legislative branch's authority then we suddenly have unelected people also have the same powers as the elected politicians they're supposed to be counter-balancing. Which can only be a bad thing.

You can't have checks and balances if the two balancing agents never step on each others' toes, moron.

[Donraj]

I'm so sick of idiots who complain that the Supreme Court is unelected. The whole fucking POINT of the goddamned thing is to provide one of the checks and balances. If they were elected in exactly the same manner as other politicians, how the fuck would they provide a balance against them?

I don't mind them being unelected when they're sticking to their role in the system. When they start usurping the legislative branch's authority then we suddenly have unelected people also have the same powers as the elected politicians they're supposed to be counter-balancing. Which can only be a bad thing.

You can't have checks and balances if the two balancing agents never step on each others' toes, moron.

You don't have checks and balances if one agent can override the other at will and the other can't.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't mind them being unelected when they're sticking to their role in the system. When they start usurping the legislative branch's authority then we suddenly have unelected people also have the same powers as the elected politicians they're supposed to be counter-balancing. Which can only be a bad thing.

Argument by talking–point does not a case make.

And as I said in my first point they made a bullshit argument to try to pretend they were basing it on the Constitution, because claiming that abortion is a Constitutional right while ignoring the basic issue of whether a fetus is a person is completely and utterly retarded.

It's not possible to ignore a "basic issue" that doesn't really exist, no matter what some people may dearly believe to the contrary.

Its in the same line of thought as saying the fundamentalist parents should be able to abuse or kill their children as long as its in the privacy of their own homes.

No, this is the bullshit argument, more formally referred to as the False Analogy Fallacy, since actual walking, talking children are demonstrably people to whom basic rights attach.

If a fetus is a person

It isn't.

and should be entitled to legal protections

It isn't. See above.

what the fuck does privacy have to do with it?

Everything, since the State has no business dictating to responsible individuals decisions regarding reproduction and reproductive health.

But in the case of ending segregation the court had a clear basis for claiming that it was their business as it did affect the Constitution. Namely, the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. The question brought before the court was whether “Separate but Equal” facilities violated the clauses of the Constitution forbidding racial discrimination. They found, rightly, that it did. There was and is no such basis for the Court to rule on abortion.

Not only is there basis in the 14th Amendment but more so in the 9th and 10th amendments as well.

I don’t pretend to know much about legal history and theory. But in Roe vs. Wade there was no unresolved question to rule on. Abortion was illegal in the United States and had been made so by state and (I assume) federal laws on the subject.

Segregation was made legal by state laws as well. That did not automatically make the matter a "resolved" issue.

The court had no grounds to alter those laws unless it could be shown that they violated the Constitution, which I think I’ve shown they didn’t.

No, you've shown no such thing, actually.

The court set itself above the legislative branch. And that was a massive abuse of their power and a violation of the whole system of checks and balances.

Absolute bullshit. Trying to argue that the Constitution confers no right to abortion is a non-starter given that implicit rights are recognised as a matter of constitutional law by the vague language of the 9th and 10th amendments. To say that the Constitution says nothing about abortion to attempt to argue that the right does not exist is also a non-starter, since abortion is also not prohibited by the Constitution. And laws outlawing abortion necessarily mean the crafting of law singling out a particular class of persons (women) seperate from others, which is a Constitutional no-no. That there is dispute and vagueness over the issue puts it squarely in the Supreme Court's purview as a far more neutral arbiter than any state legislature which can be and often is swayed by popular sentiment or interest-group pressure. And the Constitution does set the Court over any state legislature and —in matters of interpreting the law— over Congress as well. If that doesn't suit you, too bad. Try arguing it with James Madison.

[Darth Wong]

You don't have checks and balances if one agent can override the other at will and the other can't.

Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity. The courts don't have complete freedom of action; they must constrain themselves to law and precedent. Moreover, the supreme law is the constitution, and a supermajority of the legislative branch can alter that constitution.

In short, you are full of shit.

[Donraj]

It's not possible to ignore a "basic issue" that doesn't really exist, no matter what some people may dearly believe to the contrary.

So whether or not abortion should be legal isn't largely a question of whether or not a fetus is a person entitled to rights?

No, this is the bullshit argument, more formally referred to as the False Analogy Fallacy, since actual walking, talking children are demonstrably people to whom basic rights attach.

Given that the court did fuck all to establish that there's a significant moral difference its a valid analogy.

It isn't.

and should be entitled to legal protections

It isn't. See above.

I agree. There's reasonable grounds to say otherwise. Are you saying there aren’t?

Everything, since the State has no business dictating to responsible individuals decisions regarding reproduction and reproductive health.

Nothing, because the State has a right and duty to protect the lives of its citizens.

Not only is there basis in the 14th Amendment but more so in the 9th and 10th amendments as well.

Name them.

Segregation was made legal by state laws as well. That did not automatically make the matter a "resolved" issue.

And while I don't like repeating myself there were Constitutional clauses saying they couldn't make it legal.

Absolute bullshit. Trying to argue that the Constitution confers no right to abortion is a non-starter given that implicit rights are recognised as a matter of constitutional law by the vague language of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Accepting that there are implicit rights guarenteed by the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution can be twisted to mean anything that the person wearing the robe says it does. Show me an amendment that can be reasonably extended to say that abortion is a protected right.

To say that the Constitution says nothing about abortion to attempt to argue that the right does not exist is also a non-starter, since abortion is also not prohibited by the Constitution.

Meaning the issue is a matter for the Congress, same as anything else the Constitution doesn't cover either way.

And laws outlawing abortion necessarily mean the crafting of law singling out a particular class of persons (women) seperate from others, which is a Constitutional no-no.

No dice. Yes, women are the ones that suffer directly abortion being illegal. That's unfortunate and unfair. Any reasonable anti-abortion advocate would prefer that abortion could be banned in a way that doesn’t affect one group disproportionately. That doesn't mean that women are being singled out intentionally, only that as a simple biological fact that’s going to be the result. If a fetus is an American citizen at risk of being murdered on a whim that’s secondary and its unreasonable to refuse to offer it any protections just to pretend that life isn't unfair.

Plus, if abortion was illegal one would have to reasonably say that any doctor that performed one would be punished, male or female. Not much of a consolation, but its there.

That there is dispute and vagueness over the issue puts it squarely in the Supreme Court's purview as a far more neutral arbiter than any state legislature which can be and often is swayed by popular sentiment or interest-group pressure.

By that logic any important disputed issue should be brought before the court. Exactly what issues do you think state and federal (and I’m really talking federal here) legislatures should be able to decide on their own?

And the Constitution does set the Court over any state legislature and —in matters of interpreting the law— over Congress as well.

Only when there’s a law to be interpreted. I’ve yet to hear a good case that there was one.

And why do you keep referring to “state” legislatures when I’ve repeatedly said I think abortion should be decided federally?

Darth Wong:

The courts don't have complete freedom of action; they must constrain themselves to law and precedent. Moreover, the supreme law is the constitution, and a supermajority of the legislative branch can alter that constitution.

My entire point is that the courts have essentially taken complete freedom of action and have refused to constrain themselves to law and precedent. And thanks for anticipating my next point for me. How, other then a super-majority of the country to force a Constitutional amendment, which we all know perfectly well is nigh-impossible to get on any issue without massive public support for one side, or the president having his party pray for God to kill a few justices so he can appoint new ones, is the legislative branch supposed to take back its right to decide the abortion issue?

[Edi]

I'm so sick of idiots who complain that the Supreme Court is unelected. The whole fucking POINT of the goddamned thing is to provide one of the checks and balances. If they were elected in exactly the same manner as other politicians, how the fuck would they provide a balance against them?

I don't mind them being unelected when they're sticking to their role in the system. When they start usurping the legislative branch's authority then we suddenly have unelected people also have the same powers as the elected politicians they're supposed to be counter-balancing. Which can only be a bad thing.

You're going to get an ass-reaming over this bit of stupidity here. Allow me to start. The role of the Supreme Court is to evaluate the constitutionality of laws that are used to judge the cases in the lower courts and which are appealed to the SCOTUS. This requires analysis of the constitution and the laws in question, and it also requires a value judgment based on the USC. This will lead to some laws being struck down and some being upheld. In other words, if the legislative branch oversteps its authority, the judicial branch smacks it down, and that interpretation of the laws and the constitution becomes the binding law of the land unless you can show some fucking solid reasoning and evidence to the contrary in subsequent cases. This is a normal function of the court, despite what all the fuckwits crying about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" are doing to muddy the waters and poison the well.

The thing is that in order to interpret and apply the USC, you have to understand the principles it's derived from and the principles your whole goddamn country is founded upon. Most of the people who make the biggest noise over this issue just stare at single bits of the text taken out of context while remaining completely ignorant of the framework of principles and context that surround the issue.

In case you hadn't noticed, the central holding of Roe was derived from the Constitution itself, albeit in a convoluted way. The Court went out of its way to make sure that Roe was based on existing law - that most fundamental of existing laws - because of its distaste for pulling rights out of thin air.

And as I said in my first point they made a bullshit argument to try to pretend they were basing it on the Constitution,

Evidence for this assertion? You don't have any, moron.

because claiming that abortion is a Constitutional right while ignoring the basic issue of whether a fetus is a person is completely and utterly retarded.

Privacy is a fucking constitutional right in the US, and that also includes decisions affecting your body. That's where it comes from, asshole. Or would you argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy and that people don't have the right to decide about issues affecting their own body? Whether the fetus is a person is dependent on the presence of cognitive ability, not merely the presence of a unique human DNA pattern. I suggest you take a good look at previous abortion debates on the board unless you want to end up real crispy.

Its in the same line of thought as saying the fundamentalist parents should be able to abuse or kill their children as long as its in the privacy of their own homes.

Nice strawman and false analogy, asshole. Last time I checked, the children of fundie parents are separate, autonomous human beings not dependent on their parents for the most basic survival the way a fetus is dependent on the woman carrying it. There is no fucking question over their personhood, but a fetus is not a person at all stages of the pregnancy.

If a fetus is a person and should be entitled to legal protections what the fuck does privacy have to do with it?

Strawman. The question is when the fetus becomes a person, and it fucking ain't at the moment of conception. Privacy relates to this in the following manner: It is a constitutional right, and rights are derived from interests. Interests arise out of awareness, which arises out of cognitive ability, and if there is no cognitive ability, there can be no awareness and no interests, hence no rights. And thus there is nothing to interfere with the woman's right to privacy and the right to decide over issues affecting her body that goes with it.

It's only when the fetus is sufficiently developed (see Wong and Degan's back and forth above) that it gains any awareness and interests and limited rights. Limited, because it is dependent on the host (mother) and cannot override all of the mother's rights, which is why abortion to save the woman's life is acceptable even at a very late stage if there are no otehr options.

But in the case of ending segregation the court had a clear basis for claiming that it was their business as it did affect the Constitution. Namely, the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. The question brought before the court was whether “Separate but Equal” facilities violated the clauses of the Constitution forbidding racial discrimination. They found, rightly, that it did. There was and is no such basis for the Court to rule on abortion.

Bullshit. See above and take a look at the fourth amendment.

I don’t pretend to know much about legal history and theory.

Here's a piece of advice: Then don't fucking act as if you do and quit arguing issues you don't have the faintest understanding of, because you're going to get your ass kicked.

But in Roe vs. Wade there was no unresolved question to rule on. Abortion was illegal in the United States and had been made so by state and (I assume) federal laws on the subject.

Laws which were, according to the SCOTUS, fucking uncosntitutional, and the reasoning for that has been laid out to you in abundance above.

The court had no grounds to alter those laws unless it could be shown that they violated the Constitution, which I think I’ve shown they didn’t.

You wish. You have no argument whatsoever.

The court set itself above the legislative branch. And that was a massive abuse of their power and a violation of the whole system of checks and balances.

Again, bullshit. See my first point about the function of the court. I suggest you study this subject until you actually understand the principles involved, because otehrwise you're going to end up a flaming wreck. We don't like bullshit here, and this is one of those subjects which has been argued extensively before. Opponents of abortion have yet to show a single logically consistent argument that does not violate several things in the USC to back up their position.

Edi

[Edi]

Hmm, it seems like I took long enough to write that post that Donraj is getting a triple hammering. Damn helldesk phone...

Edi

[Donraj]

Edi:

I addressed some of your points when I responded to Wong and PD, so I'm just going to comment on the new ones. No offense since you didn't notice the rest of my hammering, but I know repeating oneself is frowned on here.

Privacy is a fucking constitutional right in the US, and that also includes decisions affecting your body. That's where it comes from, asshole. Or would you argue that there is no constitutional right to privacy and that people don't have the right to decide about issues affecting their own body?

And the right to privacy, and right to control over one's own body, is not absolute and its universally recognized as ending at someone else's nose. I don’t have a right to kill you. You don’t have the right to slug me, even if we’re standing in your living room, assuming I’m not an intruder. Unless you want to throw out the laws on assault and murder you have to admit that, and from there its only a matter of how much.

Here's a piece of advice: Then don't fucking act as if you do and quit arguing issues you don't have the faintest understanding of, because you're going to get your ass kicked.

I understand all I need to grasp the issue at hand.

Strawman. The question is when the fetus becomes a person, and it fucking ain't at the moment of conception.

Okay, I concede I made a mistake on this point. The question is at what point a fetus becomes a person. Same difference. Until you have addressed that issue it’s a live question. You and Wong and others here have done that. The Supreme Court didn’t. The Supreme Court waffled and used a “viability” criteria that’s basically hostage to how advanced medical technology is.

Privacy relates to this in the following manner: It is a constitutional right, and rights are derived from interests. Interests arise out of awareness, which arises out of cognitive ability, and if there is no cognitive ability, there can be no awareness and no interests, hence no rights. And thus there is nothing to interfere with the woman's right to privacy and the right to decide over issues affecting her body that goes with it.

It's only when the fetus is sufficiently developed (see Wong and Degan's back and forth above) that it gains any awareness and interests and limited rights. Limited, because it is dependent on the host (mother) and cannot override all of the mother's rights, which is why abortion to save the woman's life is acceptable even at a very late stage if there are no otehr options.

I will, however, repeat myself to say this explicitly: I don’t disagree. I don’t think a fetus is a person at most stages of pregnancy. I don’t think abortion should be illegal. I agree that even if a fetus is conscious its rights don’t automatically and completely override the mother’s rights to her own body, both in the obvious case of medical necessity as you gave and possibly others. I fully believe that abortion should be legal, and I personally would like to see a fucking Constitutional amendment making it an inalienable right and requiring the government to pay for them. My issue, my sole issue, is with the manner in which abortion was made legal in the US.

Again, bullshit. See my first point about the function of the court. I suggest you study this subject until you actually understand the principles involved, because otehrwise you're going to end up a flaming wreck. We don't like bullshit here, and this is one of those subjects which has been argued extensively before. Opponents of abortion have yet to show a single logically consistent argument that does not violate several things in the USC to back up their position.

You’re not getting any bullshit for me. I’ve lurked here and I know this subject has been discussed here many times before, same as at any forum. In my experience most people haven’t looked at it from the angle I’m arguing. And I’m not an abortion opponent, but my argument is perfectly consistent.

[Patrick Degan]

It's not possible to ignore a "basic issue" that doesn't really exist, no matter what some people may dearly believe to the contrary.

So whether or not abortion should be legal isn't largely a question of whether or not a fetus is a person entitled to rights?

And how is foetal "personhood" to be demonstrated? The brain is nowhere near sufficiently developed for even basic cognition, there is no "personality" gene, and the concept of the soul is strictly a matter of religious belief. The foetus in first trimester certainly cannot survive outside the womb and it's an iffy proposition for second trimester. The only way to argue personhood and rights for it is to decide the matter on a wholly arbitrary basis, and that's not good enough to advance potentiality over actuality.

No, this is the bullshit argument, more formally referred to as the False Analogy Fallacy, since actual walking, talking children are demonstrably people to whom basic rights attach.

Given that the court did fuck all to establish that there's a significant moral difference its a valid analogy.

I'm not responsible for your fantasies. Medical science is what demonstrates the difference. I'm sorry if that doesn't suit you.

There's reasonable grounds to say otherwise. Are you saying there aren’t?

What reasonable grounds? Because you really, really, really want to believe that there are?

Everything, since the State has no business dictating to responsible individuals decisions regarding reproduction and reproductive health.

Nothing, because the State has a right and duty to protect the lives of its citizens.

That assumes a foetus is a person, which is not reasonably demonstrable no matter how much you wish to think it is.

Not only is there basis in the 14th Amendment but more so in the 9th and 10th amendments as well.

Name them.

I already have. Or do you have a reading-comprehension problem as well?

Segregation was made legal by state laws as well. That did not automatically make the matter a "resolved" issue.

And while I don't like repeating myself there were Constitutional clauses saying they couldn't make it legal.

Which the Supreme Court in 1898 said could be filtered through the "separate but equal" theory, which gave the states leave to make it legal.

Absolute bullshit. Trying to argue that the Constitution confers no right to abortion is a non-starter given that implicit rights are recognised as a matter of constitutional law by the vague language of the 9th and 10th amendments.

Accepting that there are implicit rights guarenteed by the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution can be twisted to mean anything that the person wearing the robe says it does. Show me an amendment that can be reasonably extended to say that abortion is a protected right.

"The enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be construed to infringe upon other rights held by the People"
—9th Amendment

"The rights and privleges not guaranteed by this Constitution shall be retained by the States, or to the People".
—10th Amendment

"All persons shall be entitled to equal protection under the laws"
—14th Amendment

And, to reiterate, it's the job of "the person in the robe" to say what the law means.

To say that the Constitution says nothing about abortion to attempt to argue that the right does not exist is also a non-starter, since abortion is also not prohibited by the Constitution.

Meaning the issue is a matter for the Congress, same as anything else the Constitution doesn't cover either way.

Meaning that it's a matter for Supreme Court interpretation, which even an Act of Congress doesn't trump.

And laws outlawing abortion necessarily mean the crafting of law singling out a particular class of persons (women) seperate from others, which is a Constitutional no-no.

No dice. Yes, women are the ones that suffer directly abortion being illegal. That's unfortunate and unfair. Any reasonable anti-abortion advocate would prefer that abortion could be banned in a way that doesn’t affect one group disproportionately. That doesn't mean that women are being singled out intentionally, only that as a simple biological fact that’s going to be the result. If a fetus is an American citizen at risk of being murdered on a whim that’s secondary and its unreasonable to refuse to offer it any protections just to pretend that life isn't unfair.

Unfortunately for that bit of spew, biology is not destiny in terms of Constitutional law. Singling out a single class of citizens based on sex is as much a no-no as doing so on the basis of race, religion, or political affiliation. This aside from the attempt to argue without basis that a foetus is a person is a citizen.

Plus, if abortion was illegal one would have to reasonably say that any doctor that performed one would be punished, male or female. Not much of a consolation, but its there.

Nice try. Secondary effects to a primary act of discrimination do not erase the distinction that the primary act is one sigling out a particular class of persons for sanction.

That there is dispute and vagueness over the issue puts it squarely in the Supreme Court's purview as a far more neutral arbiter than any state legislature which can be and often is swayed by popular sentiment or interest-group pressure.

By that logic any important disputed issue should be brought before the court.

That, shitwit, has been precisely the logic of Constitutional law since Marbury v. Madison. Something you'd understand if you had any real grasp of constitutional history and theory (which you admitted you lack) instead of attempting to argue by talking-point.

Exactly what issues do you think state and federal (and I’m really talking federal here) legislatures should be able to decide on their own?

The issues which bear directly on their powers and on which they have scope under the law. Altering the meaning of constitutional law and liberties by legislative fiat do not fit that bill.

And the Constitution does set the Court over any state legislature and —in matters of interpreting the law— over Congress as well.

Only when there’s a law to be interpreted. I’ve yet to hear a good case that there was one.

Again, I'm not responsible for your fantasies.

And why do you keep referring to “state” legislatures when I’ve repeatedly said I think abortion should be decided federally?

Because the Federal government doesn't get to decide the meaning and scope of constitutional law and liberties by legislative fiat any more than the states do. Try asking yourself why the Congress hasn't even tried touching this one.

My entire point is that the courts have essentially taken complete freedom of action and have refused to constrain themselves to law and precedent.

Evidently, you presume that by repeating the same stupid non-argument ad-infinitum, it somehow becomes true. We call that the "Wall of Ignorance" tactic around here.

And thanks for anticipating my next point for me. How, other then a super-majority of the country to force a Constitutional amendment, which we all know perfectly well is nigh-impossible to get on any issue without massive public support for one side, or the president having his party pray for God to kill a few justices so he can appoint new ones, is the legislative branch supposed to take back its right to decide the abortion issue?

The legislative branch can't take back a "right" it doesn't have to begin with.

[Edi]

Edi:

I addressed some of your points when I responded to Wong and PD, so I'm just going to comment on the new ones. No offense since you didn't notice the rest of my hammering, but I know repeating oneself is frowned on here.

Pointlessly repeating oneself is frowned upon, yes. But it looks like you engaged more in handwaving than bringing any points to bear.

And the right to privacy, and right to control over one's own body, is not absolute and its universally recognized as ending at someone else's nose. I don’t have a right to kill you. You don’t have the right to slug me, even if we’re standing in your living room, assuming I’m not an intruder. Unless you want to throw out the laws on assault and murder you have to admit that, and from there its only a matter of how much.

Is there a point here somewhere or just more handwaving? Obviously the right to swing one's fist ends at the beginning of another person's nose, because at that point you're not making a decision that affects only your own body (swinging your fist), but also a decision that affects somebody else's body, which you are not allowed to do without consent. Which is why e.g. boxing matches are legal, because there is consent involved.

Here's a piece of advice: Then don't fucking act as if you do and quit arguing issues you don't have the faintest understanding of, because you're going to get your ass kicked.

I understand all I need to grasp the issue at hand.

Hardly. You have demonstrated a great deal of ignorance, which shows this claim to be false.

Strawman. The question is when the fetus becomes a person, and it fucking ain't at the moment of conception.

Okay, I concede I made a mistake on this point. The question is at what point a fetus becomes a person. Same difference. Until you have addressed that issue it’s a live question. You and Wong and others here have done that. The Supreme Court didn’t. The Supreme Court waffled and used a “viability” criteria that’s basically hostage to how advanced medical technology is.

When the people who work in the medical field come to this point, you're going to regret you ever brought this up. There are limits to how early even advanced medical tech can save premature babies. The record survival is somewhere after five months and before five and a half. InnerBrat for example was premature at five and a half. But before five months, even with the most advanced technology, the body of a fetus cannot survive outside the womb, because its organs and other systems are too underdeveloped to function properly on their own. In this regard, the viability argument is completely unaffected. Put the cutoff at five months, after which you need to demonstrate an actual medical or other significant reason for aborting rather than having an abortion on demand. No need to overturn the decision itself, because its underlying logic and reasoning are sound.

My issue, my sole issue, is with the manner in which abortion was made legal in the US.

An invented problem where none exists in reality. See above.

In my experience most people haven’t looked at it from the angle I’m arguing. And I’m not an abortion opponent, but my argument is perfectly consistent.

Consistent with itself, but inconsistent with reality unless one accepts your underlying assumptions, which are either unsound or irrelevant.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

The courts don't have complete freedom of action; they must constrain themselves to law and precedent. Moreover, the supreme law is the constitution, and a supermajority of the legislative branch can alter that constitution.

My entire point is that the courts have essentially taken complete freedom of action and have refused to constrain themselves to law and precedent.

I've had enough of your bullshit. You will either provide evidence for this absurd claim, or you will concede. Otherwise, I'll shitcan your lying ass so fast that your nuts will end up in a different zipcode than the rest of you.

We have rules here; this isn't a typical idiot forum where morons such as yourself can spout completely nonsensical claims and never get called on it. If you have evidence that the court routinely and casually violates the Constitution or Supreme Court precedents in its rulings, provide it now. Put your money where your flapping gums are.

[Admiral Johnason]

Donraj, the Supreme Court has not upsurped the Constitution. Every time a radical decision is made, the side that got screwed says that SCOTUS has broken the rules and gone too far. The court has already set it's own powers, Mauberry v Madison, and as far as I know, there has never been a case where the court has abused it's power and broken ht e rules to gain more.

Now it should be noted that if the Supreme Court were to make a decision, then there are ways around it. Congress could refuse to give funding to enforce the decision, this has happened, or the Execuative branch could simply not enforce, though this has happened very rarely.

You may complain that the court has gone beyond it's appointed powers due to ruling on issues that you don't understand. These men and women ruled on issues of constitutionally and have stuck by the law and have acted corrrectly.

[Simplicius]

And as I said in my first point they made a bullshit argument to try to pretend they were basing it on the Constitution, because claiming that abortion is a Constitutional right while ignoring the basic issue of whether a fetus is a person is completely and utterly retarded.

Explain how the Court "pretended" to base their argument in Roe on the Constitution, as opposed to actually doing so.

Here's a hint, since you seem to have trouble grasping this: the Court's precedent, like the Constitution itself, is the fundamental law of the land.

So, first: Griswold v. Connecticut found a right to privacy in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded that right to privacy from couples to individuals. Roe extended that individual right to the specific circumstance of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy. Exactly when and how that ability to terminate is where the battle is taking place, but abortion cannot be banned outrght by any state.

Hmm...Constitutional amendments -> Griswold -> Eisenstadt -> Roe. I guess that shoots down your bullshit about the Court ignoring law and precedent. Care to try again?

Okay, I concede I made a mistake on this point. The question is at what point a fetus becomes a person. Same difference. Until you have addressed that issue it’s a live question. You and Wong and others here have done that. The Supreme Court didn’t. The Supreme Court waffled and used a “viability” criteria that’s basically hostage to how advanced medical technology is.

If you paid more attention to the cases on this issue, you'd have realized that the Court is no longer "hostage to medical technology" because of Justice O'Connor; the trimester standard articulated in Roe has been abandoned for precisely that reason. All that remains from Roe is its central holding, i.e. that the right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy.

Accepting that there are implicit rights guarenteed by the Constitution does not mean that the Constitution can be twisted to mean anything that the person wearing the robe says it does.

Yes, it does. Justives have invented fundamental rights from thin air, and those inventions have stood as the fundamental law of the land - at least until the opinion in question was overturned. And before you ask, it had absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

Show me an amendment that can be reasonably extended to say that abortion is a protected right.

No, no, no. For shame. No amendement says abortion is a protected right, because the right in question - applied in Roe, and against which anti-abortion activists rail - is privacy, a right as fundamental as free speech. And the argument for privacy is grounded in the Constitution.

If a fetus is a person and should be entitled to legal protections what the fuck does privacy have to do with it?

*Sigh* Because privacy is a fundamental right - i.e. one that can't just be ignored on a whim. So, whether a fetus is a person or not in the eye of the Court, entitled to legal protection or not, that other fundamental right exists and must be accounted for. Roe delicately balanced two competing fundamental rights; anti-abortion activists are attempting to entirely remove one from the equation.

Donraj, no matter your position on the issue of abortion, it's apparent that you know little of the cases which have shaped the matter, or even much of the role of the Supreme Court and judicial interpretation. I advise you start studying these things before resuming this debate or beginning another on the topic.

[Durandal]

Argument by talking–point does not a case make.

You mean argumentum ad quod fama is a logical fallacy?!

[Donraj]

Mr. Wong, I have given you a page and a half of proof and arguments to back up my claim. You and your’s have chosen to ignore and misrepresent them in favor of repeating mindless, stereotyped liberal arguments. On the off-chance that you really don’t think I’ve provided proof of my claim and aren’t just being dense as an pretext to flame me I’ll restate myself, one last time. The example I offer of the Supreme Court flagrantly and arrogantly violating the Constitution and Court precedents is Roe vs. Wade. In setting their personal politics above all forms of American law the justices who made that decision dishonored themselves, dishonored their positions and spat in the face of every citizen of the United States of America, liberal or conservative, Christian or atheist, regardless of whether some of them are perceptive and open-minded enough to realize it, just as the Massachusetts Supreme Court and a certain Louisiana judge who’s name I can’t remember did more recently in the matter of gay marriage. That is all the evidence I have to offer on the subject and all the evidence I or anyone else should need to form an opinion on the subject.

But, feel free to ignore that. Because as of now I’m not arguing to prove the point anymore or even arguing the point at all. I am withdrawing from this discussion, with apologies to the others who’ve spoken since my last post for failing to address their points, not that it would make much difference either way. In the past few years I’ve very grudgingly come to accept that no matter how right my position is or how good my arguments are some people will simply refuse to be persuaded. It became apparent a ways back that this is one of those and for once I don’t plan to bull on regardless. No Mr. Wong, I’m writing this post for the express purpose of telling you off. For the first time in the four years or so I’ve been on the Internet I am going to write one of the “Fuck you all, this place sucks and I’m leaving” posts that were so in vogue at a place I once frequented. You’ll forgive me for any shortcomings in this since I’ve never done it before, but I’ve seen plenty of examples, so I’m sure I can come up with something.

First of all, let me thank you for providing me with hours of interesting, free reading material. I’ll probably continue to read your site even after my soon to be banning just out of curiosity. If nothing else you’ve pretty much convinced me that Star Wars could, in fact, whoop the Federation’s ass.

Now then. I’ve lurked here for a good while before I posted. I’ve read the rules at the front door, I’ve read old debates, I knew what the board culture was. And since I knew that going in it would be churlish for me to whine about being flamed here, which I fully expected. What I didn’t expect, and is my main reason for telling you off here, is the blatant intellectual dishonesty you and your cronies have shown in this thread. I have given you a well-thought out, coherent argument supported by the logic and the facts as to why Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. I have not once used strawmen, false analogies or any of the other fallacies and dishonest tactics I have been wrongly accused of here. You proceeded to ignore them and display a wonderful example of the “Wall of Ignorance” tactic your compatriots accused me of using. You, sir, are a fraud. You are not an intellectual, you are not an good debater and you are not worthy of respect as a person. You are an arrogant, bitter, spite-filled man who has surrounded himself with people who either think like you or are in awe of you and pass that off as being a model of reason. You are, in short, an trolling little ass who invents pretexts to display your general disrespect and intolerance for others’ views, then relies on the mob, your authority and the fact that most of the people who you debate with are immature or unprepared enough to make mistakes that you can further latch on, then you use their banning or concession as supposed proof positive.

Now then. We all know how obnoxious it is when people make a “final post” and then come back with an even more final post, so I won’t be creating a Wankatine to this post’s Sidious. To the people who will be rushing into to flame me and most especially to Wong himself’s reply, whatever it is, let me give a pre-emptive fuck you. Admiral Johnason, Simplicius, I would like to say that despite the fact that I disagree with you and your reasoning you’ve won some of my respect with your last two posts. Not because of the lack of flaming but because you’re about the only people who’ve given me the impression that you were at all seriously considering my argument, even if you discarded it out of hand. I say this not out of any desire to score points or sympathy, and you’re free to call me whatever epithets you like, but because its true. I wish you well.

Finally, as I said before I know this board’s policies. I’d like to compliment you on the fact that I know you won’t be deleting my post. But I also know that’s generally not all you do to “idiots” after you ban them. That being the case let me say right here and now: Bring it on. “Shitcan” me. Put me in the Hall of Shame. Put me in Parting Shots. Write up an entry and put me in your Encyclopedia Moronica complete with a link to this thread. I’m willing to wager that any reasonable person who’s not part of this community that reads this thread will agree that I’m the rational, if not necessarily correct, person in this argument and that you’re a trolling, dishonest little dipshit. I will personally give show this thread to friends and acquaintances just because I know that it will only make me look like a better person in their eyes and make you look like a stupid little dick. Nothing would please me more then to know that you are paying bandwidth for what is essentially a shrine to me owning you, and the fact that you’re too dense and prejudiced to even realize what an idiot you look like only makes it more delicious. My only regret is that I won’t be able to see it, since you’ve made the Hall of Shame members only and I certainly have no intention of re-registering.

Well then. That’s about all there is to say. I really hate to discredit myself by paraphrasing the last words of the infamous Darkstar, but I really can’t find a better way to put it then, “Go ahead, ban me!” Bye. Aloha. Tiān yá hǎi jiǎo， Jiānádàrén。

Oh yeah. One more thing. Mike? U R IDIOT!

[Stark]

So... you respect them, even though they totally stomped your understanding of the Supreme Court and the cases involved, invalidating your entire argument?