[~Candy~]

*back on topic, Candy and Di back slooooowwwwwly away*

Have fun Di


Actually, that would be even funnier if Mulder had said "TACO" you to death

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Ok, Mulder, we are not applying the term in a way that fits the criteria that applies to the abortion issue. The Peterson "fetus" was near full term and is protected. It is recognized protected even from maternal abortion except where the mother's health is at stake.

Your citation of the "fetus" issue does nothing to clarify the stakes here.

But where along the line the fetus is is irrelevant to the issue of whether its a "person" under the Constitution. It is NOT a person until its born--whether that's at 5 days, 5 months, 6 months or 9 1/2 months. And in fact you bring up the big dillemma for the liberals/pro abortion crowd--if legally you can abort a "fetus" than you should be able to do it at any point in the pregnancy under the Constitution (if there is truly a right to have an abortion). But the "fiction" created by the court is that the state has an interest in the fetus when its "viable"--why? They have the same damn right anywhere in the pregnancyt. That's a distinction without a real difference. If we get to the point where we can keep fetuses "viable" from Day 1 of the pregnancy, what are the abortionist's going to say then?

This really comes down again to the fact that people can morally accept terminating a 4 week old fetus because it barely looks human, but people are much much more reluctant to do it with a six month old fetus that looks very much like a human baby. And you can parse all the Constitutional minutia you want, but in the end the decision came down to a practical consideration that abortions were going to be done anyway, so they might as well make them legal and then they twisted and contorted the Constitution to find a compromise because they knew damn well if they said the state had no right to prevent abortions at 8 or 9 months, there'd be a rebellion of epic proportions and they all would have been lynched. Anyone that thinks differently and actually believes this "viability" nonsense is kidding themselves.

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

What is ultimately going to be decided is whether a state has to prove a detriment to society in order to justfy a law against abortion (or any other restriction of personal freedom or privacy for that matter). As of now, a non-viable fetus does not have that protection under the constitution. The mother has privacy rights protections because the non-viable fetus is not considered a "person" in the 14th ammendment sense of the word.

Well, that's a distinction between viable and non-viable fetus and that should have no bearing whatoever on the homicide issue. The issue for homicide is the killing of a "human being" or "person" and as I said, viable or not, a fetus is NOT a human being or person until born. Viability does nothing to resolve the dilemma of charging a person with homicide for killing a fetus.

[plschwartz]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Well for many of the liberals, that's social utopia. They believe the guy that mows your lawn should get just as much as the doctor who cares for you. Of course, if it were mainly minorities that were doctors and white people mowing your lawn, the liberals wouldn't have any problem with that system!

Mulder:
When you were young instead of cowboys and indians did you play liberals and conservatives. Just which liberals are you talking about.

I do have problems with the extremes of disparity where the head of the company (say Walmart) makes what a 10K TIMES more then his employees. This is more like the old banana republics
And of cause a auto-parts worker (Delco employee made 60k a year) while our kids teachers make a lot less

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Ok, Mulder, we are not applying the term in a way that fits the criteria that applies to the abortion issue. The Peterson "fetus" was near full term and is protected.

And the great Roe slight of hand is the "viability" disctinction. As I said, just a way to address the huge moral dillema of killing babies that actually look too much like babies.

[Rollin' Rog]

I am not here arguing the philosophical case for or against abortion. Nor what constitutes a "person" in the legal sense.

I am simply stating that Alito is not going to rewrite already accepted conventions as defined by the case law that is already decided. His very conservatism will mitigate against that.

He may decline to extend them, but he will not reverse them.

You have already cited one good example: Griswold.

The gist of this is that the state may not keep me from walking down the street with a toad on my head -- unless that toad is endangered, psychedelic, or both.

It has to PROVE a detriment to to social welfare (or at least to such toads), not simply declare it so based on their personal philosphies.

[Prolix]

Originally Posted by Mulder

It is NOT a person until its born--whether that's at 5 days, 5 months, 6 months or 9 1/2 months. . . . The issue for homicide is the killing of a "human being" or "person" and as I said, viable or not, a fetus is NOT a human being or person until born. Viability does nothing to resolve the dilemma of charging a person with homicide for killing a fetus.

I don't pretend to know when exactly life begins, or when a life becomes "human," but I do know that the Constitution does not define whether an unborn fetus, or even a zygote, qualifies as a life deserving of protection. Anyway, for a view that "human life" begins at conception, and that such a life should be viewed as a person, see the following link:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life000.html

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by plschwartz

Mulder:
When you were young instead of cowboys and indians did you play liberals and conservatives. Just which liberals are you talking about.

I do have problems with the extremes of disparity where the head of the company (say Walmart) makes what a 10K TIMES more then his employees. This is more like the old banana republics
And of cause a auto-parts worker (Delco employee made 60k a year) while our kids teachers make a lot less

yeah--I have a problem with it too, but that's the best system we have and it results in the most amount of prosperity for all.

Also, your problem with the Walmart guy making 10K as much as his employees is not solved by reducing his salary (how would you even do that? ). As an example, you probably have 300000 employees or something like that. If we assume the Walmart guy makes 10000 times as much as the employees and the average employee makes 30000 a year, then the Walmart guy makes $300,000,000 (using your 10K more). Well, should we take 150,000,000 from him? That gives each of his employees and extra $500 a year! That really changes their lifestyle dramatically! Moreover, very little of that $150,000,000 is going to be taxed because people in that income category pay little or no income tax. However, a whopping portion of it (40 plus percent state and federal) is going to be taxed if Walmart Guy keeps it so it actually provides a lot more tax revenue to Uncle Sam

That's the point--liberals don't like people making a lot of money, but don't realize that trying to redistribute it is counterproductive to our economy and worst for everyone. $150,000,000 to the Walmart guy is going to generate a lot more income in terms of creation of other jobs and a lot more tax revenue for the Federal Government than if its redistributed to all the employees. If liberals have their way, we will have far less in tax revenue than we have now--we'll end up like France or Germany--far less productive than they could be if their economies were structured properly.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Prolix

I don't pretend to know when exactly life begins, or when a life becomes "human," but I do know that the Constitution does not define whether an unborn fetus, or even a zygote, qualifies as a life deserving of protection.

That's precisely the problem with Roe v. Wade--its a fiction--a compromise--a Houdini-like contortion of the Constitution that allowed abortion, but still kept us human in that they would go so far as to say the state could not protect 8 and 9 month olds from abortion. But from a straight legal reasoning point of view, that decision is completely unsupportable.

[GoneForNow]

Roe v. Wade, from a legal standpoint and analysis, is what happens when you start with a faulty legal premise. Roe is nothing more then Griswold extended to it's illogical conclusion. It's what happens when judges find new rights were none existed before. The underpinnings of Roe/Griswold don't appear very often anymore as the realization that the "right" to privacy isn't a constitutional benchmark upon which to judge human behavior.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

I am not here arguing the philosophical case for or against abortion. Nor what constitutes a "person" in the legal sense.

I am simply stating that Alito is not going to rewrite already accepted conventions as defined by the case law that is already decided. His very conservatism will mitigate against that.

He may decline to extend them, but he will not reverse them.

You have already cited one good example: Griswold.

The gist of this is that the state may not keep me from walking down the street with a toad on my head -- unless that toad is endangered, psychedelic, or both.

It has to PROVE a detriment to to social welfare (or at least to such toads), not simply declare it so based on their personal philosphies.

Well, you don't have that social detriment aspect correct. A state can regulate anything it wants so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. But my point about the "privacy" fiction of Griswold is just that--its a fiction. There are many privacies that we don't have--its whatever practically speaking some judge thinks goes to far or doesn't go too far--the legal distinctions they come up with are nebulous. It really boils down to a balancing of competing interests. Its Ok for the State to require a blood test for marriage because they claim it helps fight disease. But they can't force you to wear a condum, which actually would be far more beneficial to social welfare than a blood test. The problem is that its just too damn far--its too much--its not practical.

This is why I say we need judges with restraint because you can really carry this thing too far with the intrustion into your "privacy".

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Roe v. Wade, from a legal standpoint and analysis, is what happens when you start with a faulty legal premise. Roe is nothing more then Griswold extended to it's illogical conclusion. It's what happens when judges find new rights were none existed before. The underpinnings of Roe/Griswold don't appear very often anymore as the realization that the "right" to privacy isn't a constitutional benchmark upon which to judge human behavior.

Yes--the rationalizations can drive you crazy as a law student. You think to yourself, "but I thought in this decision, they said the federal government can't regulate that, but then here in this decision, they say they can" (and then comes some rationalization as to why and how). In the end, again, its a balancing of competing interests, which the legislatures usually do a very good job at and which is why the court should keep its nose out of it for the most part.

Also, let's not forget that the period of Griswold and the Warren Court was very unique in our history--a period when the court finally wrenched the law away from the Puritans and made it much more mainstream. Those days are over--we are at a point now where there are many many groups to lobby legislative branches for all kinds of minority interests. We don't really need courts to step in near as much as it was needed during the liberation period that began in the 50s and 60s.

[Rollin' Rog]

It really boils down to a balancing of competing interests.

Yes on that, but the point at issue is ultimately the State's burden of proof. And as far as I'm concerned, there is no inherent reason why the use of condoms coudn't be enforced under specifically defined circumstances -- IF it can show a clear and compelling interest.

Again, not to belabor the point -- I am not debating the morality or immorality of abortion, but the scope of the 14 th ammendment, which I think is very broad and can only be limited by other clear and compelling interests -- not abstract moral ideology, no matter what legal entity is pushing it.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

Yes on that, but the point at issue is ultimately the State's burden of proof. And as far as I'm concerned, there is no inherent reason why the use of condoms coudn't be enforced under specifically defined circumstances -- IF it can show a clear and compelling interest.

Again, not to belabor the point -- I am not debating the morality or immorality of abortion, but the scope of the 14 th ammendment, which I think is very broad and can only be limited by other clear and compelling interests -- not abstract moral ideology, no matter what legal entity is pushing it.

Well I don't see anything in the 14th Amendment that even comes remotely close to saying a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion!

[GoneForNow]

In today's court Roe v. Wade wouldn't make it to the Court nor would Griswold and host of other liberal rantings from the 60's and early 70's. It has taken the Court a long time to rein in the concept of "right" to privacy. A ******* legal concept if there ever was one.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by Rollin' Rog

YAgain, not to belabor the point -- I am not debating the morality or immorality of abortion, but the scope of the 14 th ammendment, which I think is very broad and can only be limited by other clear and compelling interests -- not abstract moral ideology, no matter what legal entity is pushing it.

You may be a little confused as the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with abortion. The 14th is a vehicle to impose federal law and judicial decisions on the states.