Trump's SCOTUS

[Fife]

I think what the Roe Court was trying to do was balance the woman's liberty interest in controlling her own body with the states' interest in protecting human life. So it's not all one or the other.

That's 2 lawyers. I don't actually know what Fife would say? Fife, what's up?

Whatever they were "trying" to do or not do, Roe is unmitigated sophistry. Say what you will about Dred Scott v. Sanford, at least it had an ethos.

Dred Scott has a logical basis in the text of the Constitution, and is the doorway to the Second American Revolution, against the tortuous compromises of the summer of '87.

Roe, on the other hand, is pure judicial hogwash, and has been considered highly suspect, especially in Casey.

It sucks, bigly.

Here's a decent piece that scrapes the surface of that boil, and comes up with a reasonable start of 10 shitty aspects of Roe: Ten Legal Reasons To Reject Roe

1. The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade exceeded its constitutional authority.

2. The Court misrepresents the history of abortion practice and attitudes toward abortion.

3. The majority opinion in Roe wrongly characterizes the common law of England regarding the status of abortion.

4. The Court distorts the purpose and legal weight of state criminal abortion statutes.

5. A privacy right to decide to have an abortion has no foundation in the text or history of the Constitution.

6. Although it reads the 14th Amendment extremely expansively to include a right of privacy to decide whether to abort a child, the Court in Roe adopts a very narrow construction of the meaning of "persons" to exclude unborn children.

7. The Roe Court assumed the role of a legislature in establishing the trimester framework.

8. What Roe gives, Doe takes away.

9. The Court describes the right to abortion as "fundamental."

10. Despite the rigid specificity of the trimester framework, the opinion gives little guidance to states concerning the permissible scope of abortion regulation.


That's a start, anyway.

[de officiis]

You are flailing, Martin. Again: go tell an abortion survivor she is not a human being. You resorting to "mysticism" and anti-religious rhetoric only shows you lost. This doesn't have anything to do with religion. It's right and wrong. Murder is wrong.

Of course it's wrong. But you know that's not where the core of the abortion debate really lies.

I'll let deO take this...

I'm really not very interested in getting drawn into a debate about abortion, so fight your own battle if you feel passionately about it. You might start by explaining what you mean by "mysticism."

[Martin Hash]

I only got on the abortion treadmill long enough to see what the counter-arguments were. Basically, they're nothing more than a sanctimonious "Appeal to Dead Puppies" Debating Fallacies resulting from religious value indoctrination. Nothing more was forthcoming, total stalemate, one of those things that only guns can cure.

Mysticism is the opposite of science, the term was popularized by my favorite scientist, Carl Sagan.

[Speaker to Animals]

So you think abortion survivors are "dead puppies", or do you believe their existence is "mystical"?

It seems to me you are just insulting people because you are desperate not to acknowledge the humanity of the victims.

[Martin Hash]

So you think abortion survivors are "dead puppies", or do you believe their existence is "mystical"?

It seems to me you are just insulting people because you are desperate not to acknowledge the humanity of the victims.

(See "Debating Fallacies" link in above post.)

[Ex-California]

Until a man can do a "legal abortion" the law needs to be abolished on the face of sexism

[The Conservative]

Until a man can do a "legal abortion" the law needs to be abolished on the face of sexism

A man can do a legal abortion, it's called masturbation.

[Ex-California]

Until a man can do a "legal abortion" the law needs to be abolished on the face of sexism

A man can do a legal abortion, it's called masturbation.

I mean if I woman gets pregnant the man has zero say in whether he wants the child or not. The woman can kill it if she wants, even if the father wants to keep it. To be fair and equal, the man should be able to recuse himself from the situation rather than be beholden to paying money to a child's mother for 18 years even if he is not allowed to be in the child's life

[Speaker to Animals]

So you think abortion survivors are "dead puppies", or do you believe their existence is "mystical"?

It seems to me you are just insulting people because you are desperate not to acknowledge the humanity of the victims.

(See "Debating Fallacies" link in above post.)

Maybe you should read it?


You and others scoff at the idea that abortionists kill human beings. You insult people by throwing in attacks on religion when you are the only ones even discussing religion.

Yet if abortionists don't kill human beings, then there shouldn't be such a thing as an abortion survivor. An abortion survivor was a baby the abortionist failed to murder, and came out of her mother's womb yet alive. Because of the Dred Scott nature of your evil abortion laws, once the baby takes a breath it becomes murder according to the law. This is why Gosnell is in prison now, for delivering the babies and then murdering them.

But anybody can see that in some cases abortionists are murdering babies that can survive outside the womb.


You are supporting the murder of human beings. Don't talk to me about "liberty" when you do that.

[Martin Hash]

Until a man can do a "legal abortion" the law needs to be abolished on the face of sexism

A man can do a legal abortion, it's called masturbation.

I mean if I woman gets pregnant the man has zero say in whether he wants the child or not. The woman can kill it if she wants, even if the father wants to keep it. To be fair and equal, the man should be able to recuse himself from the situation rather than be beholden to paying money to a child's mother for 18 years even if he is not allowed to be in the child's life

Dude, don't get dragged into an "equality" argument, that's them winning.

Women have won in The Courts in an endless string of battles, and rightfully so, because they used liberty as their argument, but men have NOT been fighting in the areas where women already had an advantage. Don't be surprised that we're behind when only one side is playing.