Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Abbey Normal said:Jurisprudence based on manufactured penumbras and emanations = bad jurisprudence
jillian said:Funny...most Constitutional scholars have no problem with applying the intent of the Constitution. I suppose you can explain how that differs from the Court inferring the right to judicial review way back when?
Or is it that you want State governments once again to criminalize the purchase of contraception or intermarriage?
dilloduck said:What I want is for women who want to "stick it to the man" to find another way to do it other than abortion on demand. Leave fetuses out of it.
jillian said:Maybe men should stop trying to control women by controlling their bodies?
What on earth does "sticking it to the man" have to do with early termination of a pregnancy? And where are all those guys when they have to pay child support?
BTW, in a good relationship, the parties are going to decide together. In a bad relationship or non-existent one the State shouldn't be legislating interpersonal relationships by giving men veto power either.
jillian said:Funny...most Constitutional scholars have no problem with applying the intent of the Constitution. I suppose you can explain how that differs from the Court inferring the right to judicial review way back when?
Or is it that you want State governments once again to criminalize the purchase of contraception or intermarriage?
dilloduck said:I've commented repeatedly that the abortion debate is merely a womens' lib issue run amok. Why shouldnt a man have the right to opt out of child support--it doesn't even harm a mass of cells ?
Abbey Normal said:It's not a question of judicial review, though that has it's problems too. It's a question of that review being accomplished by manufacturing non-existent rights via imagining that they emanate from other Clauses. and "Applying the intent of the Constitution" when it is not in there, is as agenda-driven as anything the other two branches could ever come up with.
jillian said:Now you're just being goofy.
dilloduck said:Afraid not---and what's this MEN trying to control womens bodies shit ! Haven't you seen the numbers of women who are anti-abortion? Have "men" issues do ya?
Abbey Normal said:It's not a question of judicial review, though that has it's problems too. It's a question of that review being accomplished by manufacturing non-existent rights via imagining that they emanate from other Clauses. and "Applying the intent of the Constitution" when it is not in there, is as agenda-driven as anything the other two branches could ever come up with.
jillian said:Actually, about 80% of anti-choice activists are men, it seems.
And I love men. :tng:
...just don't think government should control women for men.
got control issues??
jillian said:Actually, trying to pretend the Constitution is a literal document is more agenda driven and more "activist" than anything else you're discussing.
And if you think judicial review "has its problems", then you're missing the point of the Court and the fact that its the last bastion of protection between tyrannical government and people... or it's supposed to be.
dilloduck said:Got a link to that stat of 80% of anti-choice activists being men? I don't think government should control men for women either but you seem to be ok with it. Why?
jillian said:How is the fact that the government is prohibited from prohibiting reproductive choice during the early parts of a pregnancy exercising control over men?
Like I said, if the woman in a man's life doesn't think enough of him to consult with him on the issue, then seems they have more problems than her pregnancy. But that's not the problem of government, is it?
Someone's got to have final say...and as imperfect as it is, it's the woman who's being affected; so it's the woman who has the choice.
Time to head home!
laterz!
jillian said:How is the fact that the government is prohibited from prohibiting reproductive choice during the early parts of a pregnancy exercising control over men?!
jillian said:Actually, trying to pretend the Constitution is a literal document is more agenda driven and more "activist" than anything else you're discussing.
And if you think judicial review "has its problems", then you're missing the point of the Court and the fact that its the last bastion of protection between tyrannical government and people... or it's supposed to be.
gop_jeff said:I never actually saw anyone admit that they thought the Constitution was not meant to be taken literally. So when it says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech, should that not be taken literally either? How about the part where the President can only serve two terms?
The judiciary is not the last bastion of protection against tyranny; the right to bear arms is.
OK, so the text from the 5th amendment "No person shall be .... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is meant to be taken... how? It seems to me that a person can't be executed without a trial. But that's what abortion does.Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Constitutional analysis doesn't say ignore the words...which is what you're saying. The way it's done and has always been done is that the Court looks at the words and, to apply the words to the issue at hand, the Court determines what the intent behind the words is.
Someone's got to have final say...and as imperfect as it is, it's the woman who's being affected; so it's the woman who has the choice.
dilloduck said:I'm glad you got away from all that silly Constitutional stuff and got down to brass tacks. Now THIS is the proper way to covince everyone that abortion should be legal!
