Jump to content

Roe v. Wade - Bad Law (from a Legal Perspective)


Luigi

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

The Declaration has no force in law. It may be admirable, but the SCOTUS makes decisions based upon the constitution. 

The Fifth Amendment played no part in either the original Roe decision or in the leaked draft that is the basis of belief that Roe will be overturned. And the debate is over when someone becomes a "person." This belief is not universally agreed upon even among Christians (much less those of other faiths), not that religious belief is relevant in a secular nation. I'm bowing out of this discussion, as it's clear that the foundation of legal opinion is not clearly being considered. And I'm leaving the country to attend an international professional conference and will have limited access to the internet.

The Fifth Amendment may have played no role in the Roe decision or in the leaked draft, but it could play a part in future elections, especially at the state level, to decide whether abortion should or should not be legal, or in future Supreme Court decisions. 

Thank you for your discussion. May your international conference be productive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am leaving the country (and my computer) tomorrow. I wonder how many of you have actually studied government and, especially, constitutional law? A little knowledge goes a little way. A lot of knowledge goes a lot farther. I have a degree in political science and a doctorate in political history. I teach this stuff, and really don't rely on random Youtube videos for my information, or what "may people" (many of them uninformed) have to say. 

Enough. We are talking past each other. And I've got a lot to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm so glad to know how well-educated you are in this field compared to us, just average voting citizens of the United States. I thank God every day for the insights and the gentle benignity of those who can make me aware of how little a way my knowledge goes. I also thank God every day that Ph.D's get only one vote per issue, the same as we, the under-educated. 

No, we're not talking past each other. We're being talked down to. Ciao!

Edited by Luigi
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2022 at 3:14 PM, Nunsuch said:

the debate is over when someone becomes a "person

heartbeatjpeg.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2022 at 5:41 PM, Nunsuch said:

I have a degree in political science and a doctorate in political history. I teach this stuff, and really don't rely on random Youtube videos for my information, or what "may people" (many of them uninformed) have to say. 

The "randomness" of YouTube videos (I don't even know what you mean by "random YouTube videos" - are they supposed to be in alphabetical order or something?) has nothing to do with the weight of the argument. I posted the YouTube link for quick & easy access to Harris' speech for those who did hear him in person 1971.His arguments about the American culture of death and the sacredness of life carry the same weight (or lack thereof) whether one hears the speech in person, or on a record (to reach a broader audience), or on YouTube (to reach an even broader audience). The medium doesn't add to or subtract from the value of the argument. So being dismissive about YouTube is completely extraneous.

My "Other people say" technique is not gossip or hearsay, and has nothing to do with how uninformed other people are. It's a rhetorical technique to break a complicated argument into manageable subtopics, following a pattern established centuries ago and used by writers such as Thomas Aquinas (I do not claim to be as intelligent as Aquinas, I just like his organizational pattern). The "many people" I'm referring to are mostly on NPR, including President Biden, Vice President Harris, Speaker Pelosi, spokespersons for Planned Parenthood, managers of abortion clinics, and so forth. So, yes, I would agree that many of them are uninformed - but that is what they say, and they are in positions of authority and power, and we who disagree with them need to figure out how to respond to them. 

And although it's wonderful that you have a degree in political science, and a doctorate in political history, and that you actually teach this stuff - I'm impressed! I stand in awe! I have my pencil and paper ready to take notes! Will this be on the test? - the actual fact of the matter is that you are not a Supreme Court justice (national or state), so your abundant and impressive knowledge will have no impact on the Roe decision. And if the Roe decision is overturned, and if the legality of abortion is subsequently decided by plebiscites in the various states, your abundant and impressive knowledge will certainly inform your own vote in the plebiscite for whichever state you live in, but will probably have no influence on the "may [sic] people (many of them uninformed)" who will vote in the same plebiscites. Using Internet technology such as Phatmass and YouTube, pointing out comparable situations, referring to their lived experience, and talking in everyday vocabulary might reach some undecided voters and convince them - whether they have graduate degrees or not - to agree with us. 

I would think that someone with a doctorate in political history would understand the basics of US government - that all the people (not just the privileged elite) have the right to vote on the issues, and that not all of the people have terminal degrees (even basic literacy isn't required to be a voter - read up on literacy tests in the South). I would think that a highly educated person would understand the basics of rhetoric, too. But obviously I would be as wrong about that as I am about this. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Luigi said:

My "Other people say" technique is not gossip or hearsay

Objection, hearsay!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 3:24 PM, Nunsuch said:

not all religions consider a fertilized egg (embryo) or even a fetus to be a living PERSON

always.jpg

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I just wanted to point out that even if there is an unsettled argument on when a human is a person, this doesn't give courts the right to pass laws which could endanger a potential person.  If I go hunting and I hear a noise in the bushes and think it could be a person, I have a legal obligation to hold my fire. Likewise, if I'm driving down the road and I see what might be a person in the road, I have the legal obligation to avoid hitting it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...