Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

  1. #1
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    The same folks applauding the Supremes for their recent EPA/ Greenhouse Gases decision are now crying about the recent upholding of the ban on Partial Birth Abortion w/o an exception to protect the "health" of the mother.

    In the EPA case ,despite not being scientists, the Court substituted its judgement for that of the EPA. In the Partial Birth Ban case, despite not being physicians, the Court substituted its judgement for that of the American Academy of Ob-Gyn. in flatly stating that the procedure was "not necessary" to protect health in certain cases. Even though Congress was very sloppy in documenting the medical realities ( to put it mildly) the Court deferred to them.

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    what can you say ... schizophrenia, Supreme Court votes based on public opinion polls and focus groups ?

    However, unlike the carbon tax decision ... I mean the EPA jurisdictional ruling re CO2 ... the partial birth abortion decision was not 'absolute'.

  3. #3
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    It's an interesting point, but I don't know what you are trying to show, unless you think that most laypeople who applaud any decision by the Supreme Court are applauding it on the basis of its sound legal analysis as opposed to the desirable result.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  4. #4
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    It's an interesting point, but I don't know what you are trying to show, unless you think that most laypeople who applaud any decision by the Supreme Court are applauding it on the basis of its sound legal analysis as opposed to the desirable result.
    You're exactly right. Result - oriented jurisprudence is not a good thing at all. Judges are not supposed to legislate. Unless another branch is doing something unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ought to defer to its decision regardless of whether or not they disapprove.

  5. #5
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Well, yeah, but... again, what are you trying to show? That laypeople should be more interested in analysis than the results? I don't really see why and I don't think it's achievable.

    As well - abortion is a human rights issue. As such it seems intuitively like it should be a part of a constitutional analysis.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  6. #6
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    We should ALL care as much for the method as the result. The Supreme Court and other Federal courts are unelected bodies effectively answerable to no one . Mischief with method by a "liberal" court which achieves a laudatory result sets a precedent for a "conservative" court to similarly usurp the function of another branch.

    My point is very simple. I don't want the Court playing "Mr.Science" nor do I want nine ninnies playing "Doctor". Worse yet, we now have MORE Federal legislation in an area traditionally,and best,left to the various states.

    I don't know about abortion as a human rights issue per se. To me it's more of a balancing act between the privacy rights of the mother and the state's interest in protecting life.

  7. #7
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    My point is very simple. I don't want the Court playing "Mr.Science" nor do I want nine ninnies playing "Doctor". Worse yet, we now have MORE Federal legislation in an area traditionally,and best,left to the various states.
    I don't think that abortion is better left to various states. Like I said - human rights issue that should have some level of consistency.

    I don't know about abortion as a human rights issue per se. To me it's more of a balancing act between the privacy rights of the mother and the state's interest in protecting life.
    Well, I would say that your characterization is wrong, but, even by it, it is still a human rights issue - just a human rights issue that needs to be balanced with another issue; that is, a human rights issue over which you are pressing for a certain result. Abortion is, in most countries, driven legally as an issue of womens' rights, health rights, the right to privacy and the right to security of the person. I would say that places it firmly in the arena of human rights.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  8. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    I don't think that abortion is better left to various states. Like I said - human rights issue that should have some level of consistency.


    Well, I would say that your characterization is wrong, but, even by it, it is still a human rights issue - just a human rights issue that needs to be balanced with another issue; that is, a human rights issue over which you are pressing for a certain result. Abortion is, in most countries, driven legally as an issue of womens' rights, health rights, the right to privacy and the right to security of the person. I would say that places it firmly in the arena of human rights.

    A LOT of issues- marriage, divorce, capital punishment , gun ownership , gay rights etc. are left to the various states.

    A "human rights issue" for whom ? Many European countries are MORE restrictive on abortion than we are AND most Europeans are aghast that we EVER permitted Partial Birth Abortion which is universally banned all over Europe. Even in the Netherlands which has physician assisted suicide. The primary purpose of PAB is to produce a dead baby=infanticide ! The current law allows for an exception to save the mother's life which afaic is the ONLY possible justification for such a barbaric procedure.

  9. #9
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    A LOT of issues- marriage, divorce, capital punishment , gun ownership , gay rights etc. are left to the various states.
    Yes. But the constitution generally provides a "baseline" does it not? And many people intuitively connect to the idea that human rights issues are, in some way, constitutional. That is, people do not feel that innate human rights should be determined strictly by majoritarianism; that if, for example, people in Texas decide that people of colour voting icks them out, that there is some check to that particular kind of tyranny.

    A "human rights issue" for whom ? Many European countries are MORE restrictive on abortion than we are AND most Europeans are aghast that we EVER permitted Partial Birth Abortion which is universally banned all over Europe. Even in the Netherlands which has physician assisted suicide. The primary purpose of PAB is to produce a dead baby=infanticide ! The current law allows for an exception to save the mother's life which afaic is the ONLY possible justification for such a barbaric procedure.
    So? The United States also internally changed the definition of torture. It doesn't mean that torture is not a human rights issue. The fact that decisions are made on human rights issues doesn't make them non-issues.

    Incidentally - you do realize that "partial birth abortion" is a made up term, right? That it doesn't actually mean much in and of itself? It covers a wide range of procedures and results? I'm not saying that you have to feel one way or another about the procedures; but just so you know that the term doesn't actually mean anything.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  10. #10
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Yes. But the constitution generally provides a "baseline" does it not? And many people intuitively connect to the idea that human rights issues are, in some way, constitutional. That is, people do not feel that innate human rights should be determined strictly by majoritarianism; that if, for example, people in Texas decide that people of colour voting icks them out, that there is some check to that particular kind of tyranny.


    So? The United States also internally changed the definition of torture. It doesn't mean that torture is not a human rights issue. The fact that decisions are made on human rights issues doesn't make them non-issues.

    Incidentally - you do realize that "partial birth abortion" is a made up term, right? That it doesn't actually mean much in and of itself? It covers a wide range of procedures and results? I'm not saying that you have to feel one way or another about the procedures; but just so you know that the term doesn't actually mean anything.
    I don't think there's an innate human right to kill children which is what PBA's or "late term abortions" do. Roe v. Wade is still good law , btw.

    It's odd, to say the least, that you choose to bring torture into the discussion because the fetus that is getting it's skull pierced or crushed certainly feels pain during the procedure. Except as a last ditch- "no other choice" procedure to save the mother's life I can't see any justification for late term abortions and neither could Congress.

  11. #11
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    I don't think there's an innate human right to kill children which is what PBA's or "late term abortions" do. Roe v. Wade is still good law , btw.

    It's odd, to say the least, that you choose to bring torture into the discussion because the fetus that is getting it's skull pierced or crushed certainly feels pain during the procedure. Except as a last ditch- "no other choice" procedure to save the mother's life I can't see any justification for late term abortions and neither could Congress.
    Oh, you're talking nonsense. Medically, legally, psychologically and in every other way there is a difference between between a fetus (even a well developed fetus) and a baby. For example - you think it is alright to "kill" the fetus to save the mother's life. If I need a kidney transplant, I'm not allowed to rip one out of a homeless guy on the street, just because it will save my life. Slightly less incendiary example - if I were pregnant with a late term fetus - I still don't think I'm allowed to drive in the car pool lane. I'm not allowed to claim it as a dependent. I would not be intended to list it on a census. So there is obviously something pretty different. If it is not viable on its own I see no particular reason a person should be legally obliged to carry a parasite that they don't want. In terms of a justification - the gruesomeness of the procedure notwithstanding, if the fetus is not viable, I cannot think that it is a good decision to not only give it rights, but to give it right OVER the woman. I am of the opinion that where rights conflict, the rights of an extant woman should take priority over a fetus. And honestly? I can't really take a man seriously when he advocates for anything different. I mean, it's very easy to cavalierly trade away someone else's bodily rights and integrity for a perceived moral cause.

    You might also consider, just in a conceptual fashion, what the law is really for. The procedure that they define in the statute consists of about 10% of abortions, and they are, unsurprisingly, generally consisting of situations in which the health of the mother or the fetus is in danger. This was not enacted to have effect.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  12. #12
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Oh, you're talking nonsense. Medically, legally, psychologically and in every other way there is a difference between between a fetus (even a well developed fetus) and a baby. For example - you think it is alright to "kill" the fetus to save the mother's life. If I need a kidney transplant, I'm not allowed to rip one out of a homeless guy on the street, just because it will save my life. Slightly less incendiary example - if I were pregnant with a late term fetus - I still don't think I'm allowed to drive in the car pool lane. I'm not allowed to claim it as a dependent. I would not be intended to list it on a census. So there is obviously something pretty different. If it is not viable on its own I see no particular reason a person should be legally obliged to carry a parasite that they don't want. In terms of a justification - the gruesomeness of the procedure notwithstanding, if the fetus is not viable, I cannot think that it is a good decision to not only give it rights, but to give it right OVER the woman. I am of the opinion that where rights conflict, the rights of an extant woman should take priority over a fetus. And honestly? I can't really take a man seriously when he advocates for anything different. I mean, it's very easy to cavalierly trade away someone else's bodily rights and integrity for a perceived moral cause.

    You might also consider, just in a conceptual fashion, what the law is really for. The procedure that they define in the statute consists of about 10% of abortions, and they are, unsurprisingly, generally consisting of situations in which the health of the mother or the fetus is in danger. This was not enacted to have effect.
    Are you arguing for : "Any abortion ; at any time; for any reason " ? It certainly appears that you are.

    Late term abortions to save the life of a woman dying of heart failure or pregnancy induced diabetes are certainly justifiable afaic.

    You talk about "viability". A fetus as young as six months is now potentially viable outside the mother's womb thanks to medical advances in treating premature babies.I think the record for a healthy surviving fetus is actually 5 1/2 months. Btw, just what exactly is it that you wish to abort ? It's a hell of a lot more than an embryo. It's brain and nervous system are sufficiently developed for it to respond to stimuli and FEEL PAIN ! No I'm not talking about that "Silent Scream " propaganda b.s. I'm talking about fetuses six months or older.

    And WHY would a woman be seeking an eighth or ninth month abortion other than as a life-saving measure ? Amniocentesis is available at least half-way through the pregnancy. Killing an "imperfect" fetus is justifiable to you, is it ? Just where do we draw the line between "healthy" and "unhealthy" ? Hydroencephalitis ? Spina Bifida ? Down's Syndrome ? Webbed feet ? Cleft lip ?
    Wrong eye color ?

    You're the one who used the word "parasite"in reference to a late term fetus . Not me. Is that how you look at children in general ? Until you can put them in a diaper commercial and let them help pay their own way ? When do you think they stop being "PARASITES" ? As far as being "wanted" - weren't there about 4 or 5 months to figure that out before the start of the last trimester ?

    Btw, your numbers are way off. Fortunately, there are only about 2200 "Pba's" or "late term uterine evacuations" performed annnually in this country. I don't know what the breakdown was between lifesaving procedures and those with other justifications.

    Regardless of how YOU choose to look at things, something like 65 % of Americans polled agree with me. So did 17 Democrat Senators.

  13. #13
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Are you arguing for : "Any abortion ; at any time; for any reason " ? It certainly appears that you are.
    Well, in Canada we have heretofore chosen to execute a "bright line" at the moment of birth. This has not been hugely contested for the obvious reasons you point out below - like, how many women get abortions for other than health reasons in the third trimester? How many doctors would perform them? It's not really a hot legal issue, in effect. But yes - any abortion for any reason. Any time - I admit, I'm a little more squeamish. Although I maintain it is not really a hot issue because it isn't done. But second trimester abortions? Yes, absolutely, any reason.

    By the way - have you read the statute? Currently I'm only reading Carhart, but I was a little surprised at the actual content of the law. Like I said, it does make me wonder what the real purpose is.
    Late term abortions to save the life of a woman dying of heart failure or pregnancy induced diabetes are certainly justifiable afaic.
    I agree. Absolutely. I'm saying that it is a significant difference in fetal life and baby life. You could not kill a baby to save someone else. I'm not saying you should be able to - just pointing out a difference that you obviously intuitively relate to. Simply - there is a difference between a fetus and a baby, and I'm insisting that you do not conflate the two.

    You talk about "viability". A fetus as young as six months is now potentially viable outside the mother's womb thanks to medical advances in treating premature babies.I think the record for a healthy surviving fetus is actually 5 1/2 months. Btw, just what exactly is it that you wish to abort ? It's a hell of a lot more than an embryo. It's brain and nervous system are sufficiently developed for it to respond to stimuli and FEEL PAIN ! No I'm not talking about that "Silent Scream " propaganda b.s. I'm talking about fetuses six months or older.
    Okay - I'm pretty sure that, in the normal course of things, a 6 month fetus would not breathe. You mention a "record" - records are usually, by definition NOT what will normally happen. Obviously, there can be no way of knowing exactly when the fetus is viable, down to the day or minute. I mean, you can't even know the exact time of conception. A fetus that is 16 weeks early? Not likely to breathe. So as a medical reality it would be a consideration of what would happen in the normal course of things.

    And WHY would a woman be seeking an eighth or ninth month abortion other than as a life-saving measure ? Amniocentesis is available at least half-way through the pregnancy. Killing an "imperfect" fetus is justifiable to you, is it ? Just where do we draw the line between "healthy" and "unhealthy" ? Hydroencephalitis ? Spina Bifida ? Down's Syndrome ? Webbed feet ? Cleft lip ?
    Wrong eye color ?
    Serious ethical dilemmas, I agree. I think we can safely exclude wrong eye colour as a non-health issue, though. Webbed feet too - it seems largely aesthetic. Consider though, that if there was a way to determine eye colour in the first trimester, would it be less of a dilemma? What you're concerned about is designer babies. What I'm concerned about is bodily integrity. You really want to take a whole mess of issues regarding birth, conception and life and pack them down into a single issue; I would like you to deal with them separately, or at least as subsets as a greater issue. We call this "coherence"; it means, more or less, that trotting out incendiary material from an ancillary topic to bolster your argument is cheating.
    You're the one who used the word "parasite"in reference to a late term fetus . Not me.
    I know. So?

    Is that how you look at children in general ? Until you can put them in a diaper commercial and let them help pay their own way ? When do you think they stop being "PARASITES" ?
    No. It is not how I look at children in general. It is how I look at unwanted fetuses: a life form that cannot survive without its host and does not provide any benefit to the host and does provide detriment. I think they stop being parasites when they no longer require the host. Yes, a baby must be fed and changed and looked after - but ANYONE can do that. However, only one particular person is on the other end of an umbilical cord.

    As far as being "wanted" - weren't there about 4 or 5 months to figure that out before the start of the last trimester ?
    I don't really see your point? Like bodily integrity has an expiry date? You get it only if you make up your mind speedily?

    Btw, your numbers are way off. Fortunately, there are only about 2200 "Pba's" or "late term uterine evacuations" performed annnually in this country. I don't know what the breakdown was between lifesaving procedures and those with other justifications.
    My numbers for what? I don't even know what you are referring to. And I already told that "PBA" was a made up term that didn't actually mean anything. The only number I used was 10% - I got that from the Carhart decision. If it is significantly fewer than 10% - really that enhances my point, it doesn't detract from it.

    Regardless of how YOU choose to look at things, something like 65 % of Americans polled agree with me. So did 17 Democrat Senators.
    So? What if a majority determined that women should no longer be allowed to speak in public? That was my entire point about majoritarianism; I mean, that's what started this discussion. Do you really think I'm just not going to notice you circling back around to it? Also - just btw - that means 35% did not. That's a lot of people to just silence on a personal rights issue.

    Incidentally - 65% of Americans are absolutely free to respond squeamishly to the procedure. I don't blame them, it sounds gross and unpleasant, and I do too. That doesn't mean that a squeamish response makes for good law.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  14. #14
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Well, in Canada we have heretofore chosen to execute a "bright line" at the moment of birth. This has not been hugely contested for the obvious reasons you point out below - like, how many women get abortions for other than health reasons in the third trimester? How many doctors would perform them? It's not really a hot legal issue, in effect. But yes - any abortion for any reason. Any time - I admit, I'm a little more squeamish. Although I maintain it is not really a hot issue because it isn't done. But second trimester abortions? Yes, absolutely, any reason.

    By the way - have you read the statute? Currently I'm only reading Carhart, but I was a little surprised at the actual content of the law. Like I said, it does make me wonder what the real purpose is.

    I agree. Absolutely. I'm saying that it is a significant difference in fetal life and baby life. You could not kill a baby to save someone else. I'm not saying you should be able to - just pointing out a difference that you obviously intuitively relate to. Simply - there is a difference between a fetus and a baby, and I'm insisting that you do not conflate the two.


    Okay - I'm pretty sure that, in the normal course of things, a 6 month fetus would not breathe. You mention a "record" - records are usually, by definition NOT what will normally happen. Obviously, there can be no way of knowing exactly when the fetus is viable, down to the day or minute. I mean, you can't even know the exact time of conception. A fetus that is 16 weeks early? Not likely to breathe. So as a medical reality it would be a consideration of what would happen in the normal course of things.


    Serious ethical dilemmas, I agree. I think we can safely exclude wrong eye colour as a non-health issue, though. Webbed feet too - it seems largely aesthetic. Consider though, that if there was a way to determine eye colour in the first trimester, would it be less of a dilemma? What you're concerned about is designer babies. What I'm concerned about is bodily integrity. You really want to take a whole mess of issues regarding birth, conception and life and pack them down into a single issue; I would like you to deal with them separately, or at least as subsets as a greater issue. We call this "coherence"; it means, more or less, that trotting out incendiary material from an ancillary topic to bolster your argument is cheating.

    I know. So?


    No. It is not how I look at children in general. It is how I look at unwanted fetuses: a life form that cannot survive without its host and does not provide any benefit to the host and does provide detriment. I think they stop being parasites when they no longer require the host. Yes, a baby must be fed and changed and looked after - but ANYONE can do that. However, only one particular person is on the other end of an umbilical cord.


    I don't really see your point? Like bodily integrity has an expiry date? You get it only if you make up your mind speedily?


    My numbers for what? I don't even know what you are referring to. And I already told that "PBA" was a made up term that didn't actually mean anything. The only number I used was 10% - I got that from the Carhart decision. If it is significantly fewer than 10% - really that enhances my point, it doesn't detract from it.


    So? What if a majority determined that women should no longer be allowed to speak in public? That was my entire point about majoritarianism; I mean, that's what started this discussion. Do you really think I'm just not going to notice you circling back around to it? Also - just btw - that means 35% did not. That's a lot of people to just silence on a personal rights issue.

    Incidentally - 65% of Americans are absolutely free to respond squeamishly to the procedure. I don't blame them, it sounds gross and unpleasant, and I do too. That doesn't mean that a squeamish response makes for good law.
    I am really trying; REALLY TRYING ! to avoid hyperbole or anything that personalizes the discussion between us because some of your statements are genuinely shocking and truly extreme. First of all, we are talking about THIRD trimester abortions all the way up to full term. Essentially, by insisting on distinguishing between fetus and child you are effectively splitting hairs unless you seriously think the fetal tissue undergoes some sort of magical transformation from stagnant tissue to a living baby as soon as it leaves the womb. Afaic, you are
    arguing for legal infanticide.

    When discussing viability we are talking about THIRD trimester and it is more likely than not such potential children are viable albeit with modern medical help. I'm sure you're not advocating adoption of the ancient Spartan and Roman system for dealing with "preemies". By all means, let us know if you are. Likewise, I asked YOU where YOU draw the line ? From YOUR POV where does "bodily integrity" end and societal interest begin ? What reasons for THIRD trimester abortions do YOU say are acceptable or is it "anything goes" ? which btw, is directly contrary to ROE V. WADE ? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this "bodily integrity"argument of yours entitles a woman to abort a fetus up to and including the date of birth for any reason whatsoever. Again, that is far beyond anything provided for by ROE.

    Frankly, my only reason for citing the poll numbers was to demonstrate what an extremist you are and how out of step you are with a very broad mainstream of thought. Actually, the numbers cited go way up when the bullshit "health of the mother" exception is thrown in. I use the barnyard term for it because "HEALTH" was stretched to ridiculous extremes to cover just about anything. In any event what you call "squeamish" is for most of us disgusted revulsion at a horrendous and barbaric procedure. Is that really how they're doing things in Canada these days ? Unwanted fetuses; even perfectly healthy eight + month fetuses are nothing more than "parasites" according to you.
    That's not just sad. It's disturbing !

  15. #15
    Featured Member flickad's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 103 Times in 67 Posts
    My Mood
    Pensive

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Jenny, I just want to compliment you on your articulate and well-reasoned arguments. I completely agree.

  16. #16
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    I am really trying; REALLY TRYING ! to avoid hyperbole or anything that personalizes the discussion between us because some of your statements are genuinely shocking and truly extreme.
    So, you're saying right now that you really want to call me names, but are restraining yourself? Well... how mature of you to bring that to my attention. Sort of like me saying "If I weren't so restrained I would say that you..." Come on. Move it along to something substantive. I don't really care how palatable you find my character anyway, so engaging in this "I think you're a monster" rhetoric is a waste of your time.

    First of all, we are talking about THIRD trimester abortions all the way up to full term. Essentially, by insisting on distinguishing between fetus and child you are effectively splitting hairs unless you seriously think the fetal tissue undergoes some sort of magical transformation from stagnant tissue to a living baby as soon as it leaves the womb. Afaic, you are
    arguing for legal infanticide.
    Okay - well, I've made clear that I think there is a substantive difference between fetus and baby, and medically that difference occurs at birth. You yourself have outlined circumstances in which what you call "infanticide" should be allowable, so this sense of moral superiority seems a little out of place. And again - I suggest that you keep in mind that you are trading someone else's rights and body for this moral superiority, not your own. Yes, I think this makes a difference.

    When discussing viability we are talking about THIRD trimester and it is more likely than not such potential children are viable albeit with modern medical help. I'm sure you're not advocating adoption of the ancient Spartan and Roman system for dealing with "preemies". By all means, let us know if you are.
    I'm sorry - have I been unclear somewhere in this conversation on when I think separate personhood begins? Or that I see a significant difference in baby and fetus? And that there are certain caregiving requirements that anyone can provide as opposed to the single person who is conscripted into being on one end of an umbilical cord? Or are you trying to irritate me or get me riled? Because, really, I think I've been clear on this issue. You should learn to disagree with people without wholly mischaracterizing their position.

    Likewise, I asked YOU where YOU draw the line ? From YOUR POV where does "bodily integrity" end and societal interest begin ? What reasons for THIRD trimester abortions do YOU say are acceptable or is it "anything goes" ? which btw, is directly contrary to ROE V. WADE ? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this "bodily integrity"argument of yours entitles a woman to abort a fetus up to and including the date of birth for any reason whatsoever. Again, that is far beyond anything provided for by ROE.
    I'm not American. And up here in Canada bodily integrity is a guaranteed right. And, I also do believe that society's interest in protecting bodily rights of actual people should trump the bodily rights of non people (that is, fetuses). I'm not sure, if we are going to say that 3rd trimester abortions are legal, that it is coherent to attach reasons. I mean - why? Why can you end developed fetal life for some reasons and not others? Like I said - you couldn't kills a baby to harvest its organs to save someone's life. Difference between fetus and baby. Importantly - why should the state be in charge of defining which reasons are important and which are not? Who is better than the woman to determine the validity of the reasons - the degree of risk that is "worth it"; the degree of illness and deformity, etc. Is this something you want to put to popular vote? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

    Frankly, my only reason for citing the poll numbers was to demonstrate what an extremist you are and how out of step you are with a very broad mainstream of thought.
    Well, there you go. When the entire discussion revolves around the fact that the tyranny of the majority shouldn't determine an individual's rights, probably citing the tyrannic majority is not going to bolster your point.
    Actually, the numbers cited go way up when the bullshit "health of the mother" exception is thrown in. I use the barnyard term for it because "HEALTH" was stretched to ridiculous extremes to cover just about anything. In any event what you call "squeamish" is for most of us disgusted revulsion at a horrendous and barbaric procedure. Is that really how they're doing things in Canada these days ? Unwanted fetuses; even perfectly healthy eight + month fetuses are nothing more than "parasites" according to you.
    That's not just sad. It's disturbing !
    It's like you think if you focus in on one word and accuse me of being barbaric I'm going to forget that I actually made a point. I remember it. And I'm actually not going to rehash it. Go back and re-read, and post again when you have a grip on what I said. Sitting there re-working my adjectives is not going to bolster your argument, nor is it going to make more cohesive. Point remains that responding squeamishly, or disgustedly - I don't care how you characterize it - doesn't necessarily make good law; especially not good law in hard cases; ESPECIALLY not good law in hard cases involving bodily rights. Now people are absolutely allowed to respond that way - part of the reason being that law that affects human rights is NOT meant to be determined by that majoritarianism. You see? My exact point.

    But yes - as I said, in Canada the law acknowledges a bright line at the moment of birth.

    By the way - you never answered - have you actually read the statute?
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  17. #17
    Featured Member flickad's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    268
    Thanked 103 Times in 67 Posts
    My Mood
    Pensive

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    ^^
    *Applauds*

  18. #18
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Meh. I think third trimester abortions are sick, IMO.

  19. #19
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSexKitten View Post
    Meh. I think third trimester abortions are sick, IMO.
    A lot of surgical procedures are sick and icky. Sometimes they're necessary though. They save lives.

    Or are you under the impression that a woman suffers through eight or nine months of pregnancy (with all its attendant vomiting, pain, etc.) and just wakes up one day and decides to have an abortion so she can fit into her favorite jeans again?

  20. #20
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    So, you're saying right now that you really want to call me names, but are restraining yourself? Well... how mature of you to bring that to my attention. Sort of like me saying "If I weren't so restrained I would say that you..." Come on. Move it along to something substantive. I don't really care how palatable you find my character anyway, so engaging in this "I think you're a monster" rhetoric is a waste of your time.


    Okay - well, I've made clear that I think there is a substantive difference between fetus and baby, and medically that difference occurs at birth. You yourself have outlined circumstances in which what you call "infanticide" should be allowable, so this sense of moral superiority seems a little out of place. And again - I suggest that you keep in mind that you are trading someone else's rights and body for this moral superiority, not your own. Yes, I think this makes a difference.


    I'm sorry - have I been unclear somewhere in this conversation on when I think separate personhood begins? Or that I see a significant difference in baby and fetus? And that there are certain caregiving requirements that anyone can provide as opposed to the single person who is conscripted into being on one end of an umbilical cord? Or are you trying to irritate me or get me riled? Because, really, I think I've been clear on this issue. You should learn to disagree with people without wholly mischaracterizing their position.


    I'm not American. And up here in Canada bodily integrity is a guaranteed right. And, I also do believe that society's interest in protecting bodily rights of actual people should trump the bodily rights of non people (that is, fetuses). I'm not sure, if we are going to say that 3rd trimester abortions are legal, that it is coherent to attach reasons. I mean - why? Why can you end developed fetal life for some reasons and not others? Like I said - you couldn't kills a baby to harvest its organs to save someone's life. Difference between fetus and baby. Importantly - why should the state be in charge of defining which reasons are important and which are not? Who is better than the woman to determine the validity of the reasons - the degree of risk that is "worth it"; the degree of illness and deformity, etc. Is this something you want to put to popular vote? I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.


    Well, there you go. When the entire discussion revolves around the fact that the tyranny of the majority shouldn't determine an individual's rights, probably citing the tyrannic majority is not going to bolster your point.

    It's like you think if you focus in on one word and accuse me of being barbaric I'm going to forget that I actually made a point. I remember it. And I'm actually not going to rehash it. Go back and re-read, and post again when you have a grip on what I said. Sitting there re-working my adjectives is not going to bolster your argument, nor is it going to make more cohesive. Point remains that responding squeamishly, or disgustedly - I don't care how you characterize it - doesn't necessarily make good law; especially not good law in hard cases; ESPECIALLY not good law in hard cases involving bodily rights. Now people are absolutely allowed to respond that way - part of the reason being that law that affects human rights is NOT meant to be determined by that majoritarianism. You see? My exact point.

    But yes - as I said, in Canada the law acknowledges a bright line at the moment of birth.

    By the way - you never answered - have you actually read the statute?
    NO ! I'm not a name caller and excessive passion and hyperbole gets us nowhere.There's no reason for me not to respect you as a person even though some of your ideas are incredibly repugnant and far removed from anything resembling mainstream thought. In fact, here in the U.S. some of them can be fairly characterized as belonging to the lunatic fringe of feminists.

    I have to admit that I personally have never run into the EXTREME position that you take in the area of reproductive rights or as you put it "bodily integrity". It is far beyond anything called for by Roe v. Wade. I can't think of anyone from NOW or Planned Parenthood who has argued for anything close to your extremist approach. Afaik, they are more than happy to simply preserve ROE v. WADE. There is a big difference between a minority view which the majority ought to respect and the lunatic fringe that seeks ridiculous absolutes.

    In a perverse way I am compelled to compliment you and I do compliment you for being straightforward in your arguments. No hairsplitting or wishy-washy situational ethics for you ! Just absolute freedom for the "host being" ( why bring MOTHERS into this ) to do whatever she likes for whatever reason but once there's a birth the magic wand is waved and personal responsbility suddenly becomes a consideration.

    Btw, I've made it clear that the ONLY justifiable circumstance for a late term abortion from MY POV is from a "self-defense" life- saving perspective. Period.

    Btw, in those cases where a late term abortion goes awry and the fetus is delivered alive- then what ? Do we honor the intent of the "host being" and kill it ?

  21. #21
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    A lot of surgical procedures are sick and icky. Sometimes they're necessary though. They save lives.

    Or are you under the impression that a woman suffers through eight or nine months of pregnancy (with all its attendant vomiting, pain, etc.) and just wakes up one day and decides to have an abortion so she can fit into her favorite jeans again?

    According to Jenny and Flickad if that's why a woman wants a late term abortion; then who are we to say she ought not have one ? Who
    are we to dare to try and limit her "body integrity" ?

  22. #22
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Eric, you are aware that Roe v. Wade does not apply in Canada, right?

  23. #23
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    NO ! I'm not a name caller and excessive passion and hyperbole gets us nowhere.There's no reason for me not to respect you as a person even though some of your ideas are incredibly repugnant and far removed from anything resembling mainstream thought. In fact, here in the U.S. some of them can be fairly characterized as belonging to the lunatic fringe of feminists.
    Maybe we could have less of the characterizations and more of the issue? Or an equal amount of the characterizations and more of the issue. Either way. I mean, I don't care if you want to characterize my ideas as unpalatable; but you can't expect to maintain my interest in a discussion if you have substantive point to make on it.

    I have to admit that I personally have never run into the EXTREME position that you take in the area of reproductive rights or as you put it "bodily integrity". It is far beyond anything called for by Roe v. Wade. I can't think of anyone from NOW or Planned Parenthood who has argued for anything close to your extremist approach. Afaik, they are more than happy to simply preserve ROE v. WADE. There is a big difference between a minority view which the majority ought to respect and the lunatic fringe that seeks ridiculous absolutes.
    Well, the U.S. has different constitutional guarantees of physical integrity than Canada. So there are likely good reasons for that. And again - you are just characterizing. Fine - if it makes you happy. But could we have just a little bit of substance too?

    In a perverse way I am compelled to compliment you and I do compliment you for being straightforward in your arguments. No hairsplitting or wishy-washy situational ethics for you ! Just absolute freedom for the "host being" ( why bring MOTHERS into this ) to do whatever she likes for whatever reason but once there's a birth the magic wand is waved and personal responsbility suddenly becomes a consideration.
    Thank you. Although I think I've said before that your evaluation is not interesting to me. I'm in school. I have qualified professor to grade me. They don't need your help.
    I don't really require an evaluation of my character from you, so that is a waste of your time. If you have any desire to discuss the issue, why don't you limit yourself to the issue? My suggestion would be this - in your next response, if you choose to make one dedicate the top paragraph to your characterizations of my ideas; I even promise to read it. After that - no more. Limit yourself to substantive critique - that is, answer question, provide cohesive arguments, make principled exceptions. It might be interesting for you to see how much substance is generally in your argument. I mean "that's repugnant" is inadequate as a counter-argument.

    Btw, I've made it clear that the ONLY justifiable circumstance for a late term abortion from MY POV is from a "self-defense" life- saving perspective. Period.
    So? I mean, I agree that you've been clear, but I haven't really asked for clarification on that issue. I have asked for clarification on how you coherently distinguish fetal life from baby life on that criteria.


    Btw, in those cases where a late term abortion goes awry and the fetus is delivered alive- then what ? Do we honor the intent of the "host being" and kill it ?
    Again - have you actually read anything I've posted here? I have to wonder, because again - this doesn't seem, upon re-reading my prior posts, to require any clarification. Have I been unclear in some way about birth, breath and independence? Because I don't think I can state it any more clearly. Why don't you help me out, go back, parse the paragraphs in which I made the point and show me exactly where I'm losing you? That will help me clarify and understand where I am being obtuse.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  24. #24
    TheSexKitten
    Guest

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    A lot of surgical procedures are sick and icky. Sometimes they're necessary though. They save lives.

    Or are you under the impression that a woman suffers through eight or nine months of pregnancy (with all its attendant vomiting, pain, etc.) and just wakes up one day and decides to have an abortion so she can fit into her favorite jeans again?
    No, I am totally understanding that sometimes it's necessary to save a woman's life. That's fine. But for all other circumstances, I think this method should NOT be used...

    which is where the law is garishly lacking the exception for a woman's health.

    I agree with that. I don't think I was very clear.

  25. #25
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Selective Deference by Supreme Ct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Maybe we could have less of the characterizations and more of the issue? Or an equal amount of the characterizations and more of the issue. Either way. I mean, I don't care if you want to characterize my ideas as unpalatable; but you can't expect to maintain my interest in a discussion if you have substantive point to make on it.


    Well, the U.S. has different constitutional guarantees of physical integrity than Canada. So there are likely good reasons for that. And again - you are just characterizing. Fine - if it makes you happy. But could we have just a little bit of substance too?


    Thank you. Although I think I've said before that your evaluation is not interesting to me. I'm in school. I have qualified professor to grade me. They don't need your help.
    I don't really require an evaluation of my character from you, so that is a waste of your time. If you have any desire to discuss the issue, why don't you limit yourself to the issue? My suggestion would be this - in your next response, if you choose to make one dedicate the top paragraph to your characterizations of my ideas; I even promise to read it. After that - no more. Limit yourself to substantive critique - that is, answer question, provide cohesive arguments, make principled exceptions. It might be interesting for you to see how much substance is generally in your argument. I mean "that's repugnant" is inadequate as a counter-argument.


    So? I mean, I agree that you've been clear, but I haven't really asked for clarification on that issue. I have asked for clarification on how you coherently distinguish fetal life from baby life on that criteria.



    Again - have you actually read anything I've posted here? I have to wonder, because again - this doesn't seem, upon re-reading my prior posts, to require any clarification. Have I been unclear in some way about birth, breath and independence? Because I don't think I can state it any more clearly. Why don't you help me out, go back, parse the paragraphs in which I made the point and show me exactly where I'm losing you? That will help me clarify and understand where I am being obtuse.
    I prefer to leave it as it is. You've made your position clear = any abortion for anyone at any time ( up until birth - correct ? ) for any reason or no reason at all.

    I take you at your word that this is the current state of the law in Canada. More's the pity afaic and shame on the doctors who make themselves party to late term abortion on a whim. Just mho. No need to respond. But there is one hypo you've left unanswered- in those rare cases where the late term abortion goes awry and the fetus is delivered alive- then what ? Kill it ? Saddle the "host being" with it's care and upbringing ? Just label me "more than a little morbidly curious" on this one little point which actually does happen albeit rarely.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Selective Camgirl site?
    By barbieface in forum Camming Connection
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-30-2011, 06:58 PM
  2. Houston The End?-Supreme Ct. decision
    By laplover69 in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 11:32 PM
  3. Houston The End?-Supreme Ct. decision
    By laplover69 in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 05:41 PM
  4. Nevada Supreme Court ruling ...
    By Melonie in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-12-2006, 05:26 PM
  5. Supreme Court decision
    By Jay Zeno in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-30-2003, 03:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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