Random Thought on the Scope of Governmental Authority

Dec 2018
3,197
951
New England
#22
No, the Supreme Court stayed in the legal arena, defining what is a person (legally). That's basic information, in a legal context. We've had this discussion before, as I recall.
Not sure I recall, but regardless, what legal definition of a person are you referring to? And more importantly, by what authority is that specific definition legally binding?
 
Dec 2018
3,197
951
New England
#23
It is certainly no lie. I have justification for my belief. It may he untrue, that is a different matter.
No, you have no justification for that beyond, perhaps, malice. No one here can credibly claim I do not engage those here who hold differing opinions.
 
Nov 2013
2,579
1,108
NM
#24
Not sure I recall, but regardless, what legal definition of a person are you referring to? And more importantly, by what authority is that specific definition legally binding?
The SC holding on Roe v. Wade is based on a long line of precedents & common-law understandings of pregnancy & fetus, going back to English common law (which the British colonies in what became the US adopted), as well as the US adopted. The precedents & associated with Roe are available @ any good article on Roe - the 1973 SC didn't simply pluck legal arguments out of the air.

Abortion in British common law was never outlawed, & prosecution was typically limited to a misdemeanor, as I recall. Abortion was quasi-legal in the US too, & rarely prosecuted - until the AMA in the US began agitating against the use of midwives in birthing in the late 1800s CE. The doctors succeeded, & abortion was outlawed by the states as part & parcel of the anti-midwife effort, by the 1900s.

Therefore the 1973 holding of Roe recognizes abortion as a possibility for women, & considers abortion to be part of the treatment spectrum available to women under a right to privacy (for medical treatment) & also as part of the family information that women & families have a right to (birth control, parenting, schooling of children, etc.)

A SC holding is binding because that's their role in the US Constitution.
 
Aug 2019
130
16
USA
#25
No, you have no justification for that beyond, perhaps, malice. No one here can credibly claim I do not engage those here who hold differing opinions.
First of all, you do not get to approve my justifications any more than I get to approve yours.
It may be that you engage some who disagree with you, but not others.
When it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, maybe it is a duck.
 
Dec 2018
3,197
951
New England
#26
Abortion in British common law was never outlawed, & prosecution was typically limited to a misdemeanor, as I recall.
Um, you've just contradicted yourself there. One cannot be legitimately prosecuted unless there's belief a law has been broken.

Regardless, British Common law has never been "adopted" by the United States in the sense that elements of those laws give the Court authority to act. The federal court system is bound by, and limited to, enumerated powers in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights made that unambiguously clear.
 
Dec 2018
3,197
951
New England
#27
First of all, you do not get to approve my justifications any more than I get to approve yours.
It may be that you engage some who disagree with you, but not others.
When it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, maybe it is a duck.
I don't approve them, but when they're BS I do label them as such.

And speaking of walking, I see the walk-back of your BS claim has begun with a rather weaselly use of the word "some." Why don't you just act like a drake and admit you were wrong.
 
Nov 2013
2,579
1,108
NM
#28
Not sure I recall, but regardless, what legal definition of a person are you referring to? And more importantly, by what authority is that specific definition legally binding?
OK, here's another cut:

'Human' and human life are very concretely defined by DNA, and pro-choice people know this.

'Human being' is a more ambiguous term but it is also clearly defined in the US and so when a pro-choice person disagrees that the unborn is a 'human being,' it is likely they are denying it is a 'person.' That term is also clearly defined in the US as a legal term.

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute



(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.


When people don't use the most accurate terms in their arguments, they may not know these legal definitions or, as is the case with many pro-life people who commonly discuss this topic, they use the terms BECAUSE they are ambiguous because they have a weak argument (like the one based completely on science) or they disagree with the definitions.
 
Aug 2019
130
16
USA
#29
.[/QUOTE]
I don't approve them, but when they're BS I do label them as such.

And speaking of walking, I see the walk-back of your BS claim has begun with a rather weaselly use of the word "some." Why don't you just act like a drake and admit you were wrong.
I say "The government has no business protecting me from myself. Zero. Zip. Nada. Ninguna. Empty set. Null. Void."
Random Thought on the Scope of Governmental Authority
You reply is some unrelated comment about suicide.

I Point out I did not comment on suicide, and you have no reply.
I say you post platitudes.
Random Thought on the Scope of Governmental Authority

I said no one disagrees with your claims (platitudes), no disagreement.
Random Thought on the Scope of Governmental Authority

You do not reply to any criticism I make about your posts, except to say you disagree.

When a poster avoids replying to any specific criticism, historically that means they do not want to continue the discussion.
 
Dec 2015
16,986
15,915
Arizona
#30
It's puzzling when "limited" government conservatives fret over the scope of federal authority while at the same time turning a blind eye to, or supporting, barbarically intrusive state abortion laws passed over the last few years.
I've been thinking about this post and would like to add a little bit of history. I think this is interesting. We'll see what the RW has to say, although it will probably be predictable.
Have you ever watched a protest (in front of an abortion clinic)? The vast majority of protesters are men and if you think about it THAT makes sense.
Why? The male of the species often feels threated by the biology of women. The mystery of pain and bleeding (childbirth too). Women have been property. Their chastity has always belonged to a man until abortion and contraception put control of women's sexuality in the woman's hands. If women could have sex without fear of unwanted pregnancy, then suddenly the man's role has shrunk to a level of somewhere between unnecessary and vestigial.

So instead, men vilify women who have abortions. They create the stigma: good women want to be mothers. Bad women don't. But of course, the easiest way out is to claim it's all about the sanctity of life. These same men don't mind the death penalty, love their killing machines--and never mind what happens to that "life" after they've survived the birth canal.
In my view, if men were the ones to get pregnant, abortion would probably be a sacrament. Viagra would be sold with a coupon for three free abortions.
 
Likes: Rescue Basket

Similar Discussions