Do people still think the Supreme Court rules based on a legitimate interpretation of the law? Surely by any possible examination of their history it's obvious that they're there to gradually move the constitution "with the times" - which literally always means toward greater Federal power.
That makes the assumption that the fetus is the initial one suffering injury, where as in reality it is the woman who is initially suffering injury, what you are advocating is akin to an attacker using deadly force to protect themselves against someone who is also protecting themselves from the original attack. Sort of blows inalienable rights out of the water then.
I would prefer a judgement based on the truth and if the 1973 SCOTUS made a judgement based on the truth of that time then so be it .. however if new evidence comes to light then perhaps the judgement needs to be revisited, I still believe that the present day SCOTUS would judge in a similar way, if that were to happen do you think pro-lifers would accept a new ruling or would their "desires" make that impossible. I'd be interested to know what new evidence has come to light that you feel would invoke a change in the Roe decision? Morals on abortion should be left to the individuals involved, it is not the place of government to legislate morals, they may try to guide them to a place that is mutually beneficial to society as a whole and that is usually based on what the majority views are at that time, there has never been a time since the Roe decision that Americans have wanted it overturned. That isn't strictly true is it, in self defence there is no conviction of crime prior to sentence being carried out, neither is there in war. This book was written by a known pro-life activist, do you think that he wrote the book without any "desires" to find what he had already preconceived .. in my opinion the book would have more credence had it been written by someone who is apathetic to abortion as a whole. Do you think that the evidence presented to the 1973 SCOTUS was fabricated, if so please provide your reasoning and evidence to support that. Truth is a variable, what may be the truth to you, may not be the truth to another, we all use whatever evidence we can muster in making the decisions as to what is the truth for us.. the last time that a truth was imposed on the populace it lead to the dark ages and the persecution of learned men, history is full of times when one body tried to enforce their truth onto all and most, if not all of them, lead to violence and persecution.
Hard to disagree with your statement. However there are still moments, uncommon though they might be, when the Supremes (majority anyways) seem to get it right (constructionist's vantage point) on controversial issues but all to often the rarefied air that is Washington allows majority opinions that are contrary to the limitations designed to protect individual liberty (life/pursuit of happiness Dec. of Ind.) within the American Federal Constitution. The Constitution was written in the political world but the writers had real world experience to base it on, that wisdom/experience is either disregarded as antiquated and/or often disdained by the more recent political players that have frothed their way to the top via smoke and mirrors. Political Academia is based in experiments, suppositions and how about we try this (again), targeting individual liberty and the American people who suffer their ineptness, because it is, of course, done for our own good. BTW the quote you have encapsulated referencing my post is a quote from an article citing the book in discussion here and not my thoughts/words. Only mentioned for accuracy as I have not read the book as of yet and cannot render an opinion/assessment regarding that particular statement.
That is assuming your premise that procreation is an assault on mankind instead of the continuation of a species is correct. No, to the contrary unalienable rights are exclusive to the individual, who has a right to exercise that right but not to infringe on it.
Sorry but where do I say it is "an assault on mankind", please be specific, as far as I am aware I don't even use the word assault in any of my comments relating to self defence .. I do say that pregnancy cause unconsented serious literal injuries to the woman involved .. how did you extrapolated "assault on mankind" from that, given that mankind is inclusive of both sexes and as such pregnancy can not be said to cause unconsented serious literal injuries to men. Furthermore the continuation of the species is purely a matter of choice, unless you are intending to force couples who want no children to procreate and ban all forms of sterilization. Unalienable (or inalienable) - not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor. If as you profess that a person can be held accountable and as such be executed then the right to life is not Unalienable is it, Unalienable by definition is something that CANNOT be removed
Truth of that time...as in the world is flat or leeching the blood from ill patients or that the universe revolves around the earth? Misconceptions accepted as truths of the time are still misconceptions. Is it your position; only when disproved or a misconception is always a misconception? First I'd be interested in reading this book to see the process and manner that decided Roe before commenting. Were there laws in any of the states that did not criminalize specific criteria for abortions? Is Theft, fraud, perjury, murder etc. illegal, unethical, immoral etc.? If so, perhaps one act can violate more than one societal standard. War at least for some nations/groups have ROE (rules of engagement) that prohibit the taking of a life in specific circumstance. The act of self-defence is not a sentence pronounced by the judicial system however it is recognised as an act that is lawful as long as the ROE are followed...but violate these and a judgment must be made. Though I have not read the book the premise seems to be surrounding how the decision was made. That does interest me. Can there be a bias...certainly a possibility. Is there a bias? I don't know, haven't read the book yet. Perhaps those who are biased will not read the book or if they do will read it with their focused bias to subjectively judge the content. I'm not sure I could recommend the book at this point as I haven't yet read it. Would it bother you if the evidence was inaccurate, falsified or slanted? I do not know what exactly was presented. Perhaps the book will detail that? If I were to believe/state or live as if the sun revolved around the earth, or that I can walk through a brick wall without disturbing it is the truth, is that really the truth? Or would you rather believe that people are free to believe in misconceptions? I am being directed to perform some tasks so I must take my leave. Appreciate your responses, chat with you in the future. Any errors are due to being rushed off the net.
Something can not be a misconception until such time it is shown to be, all of the things you mentioned were believed to be the truth based on the known at that time. Hence why I said IF there is new data that shows the original Roe Decision was based on misconception then perhaps it should be re-visited .. however I would still say that based on todays data the present day SCOTUS would find in the same or very similar way. But then that isn't new data is it, it's just another persons opinion of the sequence SCOTUS used to come to their decision. I could ask the same question about a time prior to when abortion were made illegal. The other things you have mentioned all have an effect on the society as a whole, abortion does not. Perhaps someone should tell the armed forces that prior to them carpet bombing areas and/or sending drones into populated areas. Yep and the ROE are more than met in the case of pregnancy. The abstract and other reviews were fairly indicative of what the book contains .. it certainly isn't unbiased. Oh I shall read it, and believe it or not with an open mind .. I shall then, of course, research all the conclusions made .. if the book is a genuine attempt to look at the judgement and doesn't fall into the trap of finding things that fit the bias of the author then it will certainly raise some interesting questions. Would it bother you if it wasn't? For the first one if you had been living in 16th Century you probably would have believed that to be true .. at that time was it a misconception or simply a lack of relevant information? The second one .. I would ask you to prove you can do it, the failure should be enough to show that your original theory was in fact incorrect, that is not to say that sometime in the future it may be possible. LOL, I know that "directed" feeling.
So the world was flat until it became or was proved a sphere? Truth needs no support nor friend or vote, it is supported wholly by and on its own merit as truth, in my opinion. Who can assess the perishability of the data until seen/considered? My expectation/impression is that this book is something of an analytical/historical account of the Roe vs Wade case as presented and debated with some focus on how the justices arrived at their conclusion and what they cited as influencing their opinion. Could be entirely off base with that assessment as I haven't read the book. What I mentioned often has an affect on individuals before it is brought to the attention of society. A platoon moves only as fast as its slowest man. The individual does have an affect on society. Societies can be judged by any number of criterion, one for me would be how a society interacts with the weakest and most defenseless. Are these souls treated with deference and respect? Or are they starved, dehydrated or mutilated. Sparta may have had similar solutions for the less than desirable or unwanted. And Still The Bell Tolls for Thee. That starts at the top with President Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner. Of course if I were scheduled to invade Japan late in WWII I might have been thankful that two bombs saved me from that duty. By but one of society's standard that even a present day (thought to be a liberal/progressive) Supreme reportedly stated went "to far to fast." I might be accused of being biased and forming preconceived notions about the content of the book without at least reading it first...so I'll wait until that time. One would hope. I would hope that every case is honestly weighed on its merit. I would hope the court that hears the case has venue and jurisdiction. If I were an honest man before a biased or agenda driven court I would fear my case could be waylaid by tainted court officers who desired a specific verdict regardless of the merit of the case, how much more horrific if it were the highest court in the land...no judicial appeal at that point. Dred Scott! The truth stands without assistance or support whilst opinion often needs both and more. Still, a good thing to be needed and lend assistance
The first clue that this book is biased is that the book review is printed in the The Washington Times, a moonie owned publication. Several more clues exist in the book review; 1. Claims that abortion is NOT safer than child birth, 2. Claims that common law did not permit abortion in revolutionary times, 3. Claims that breast cancer is affected by abortion 4. Claims that psychological damage is caused by abortion. It is obvious that the book is biased, and therefore not factual, from the book review, without ever reading a page of the book itself.
As far as the people of that time were concerned the world was flat, that was the truth for them based on what was known .. The absolute truth was different from the known truth based on the available evidence, just as the "truth" changed when science discovered that the earth isn't actual round, it is more of a rugby ball shape .. hence while the absolute truth will always be correct, the truth as we know it and see it is ALWAYS subject to change as and when we discover new data and evidence. The pure physical truth of something is also quite different from the physiological truth . .don't know if you are a believer in God, but if you are then you believe that God exists as a truth, but because there is little to no evidence to support that "truth" it can never be an absolute truth until such time, if ever, the existence of god is proven. This is why we cannot berate decisions made in the past based on data available to them at that time, we can only re-visit those decisions and update them according to what we know now. Do you really think that since the Roe decision that it has not been scrutinized from every possible angle, that every single sentence uttered has not been examined with a fine tooth comb, and will the conclusions of the author merely adhere to his already preformed bias? That is the thing though, abortion only ever has an affect on the individuals, if Mrs Smith down the road has an abortion, how does it affect you, it doesn't, where as if Mrs Smith were burgled, it affects you because it means there is a chance of a gang of thieves operating in your area, if Mrs Smith were murdered then it affects you because their could be a murderer in your area. The judgements you are using are all based on how we treat born people, and despite the pro-life pleas there is and always has been a distinct difference between how we relate to the born and the unborn, if you are looking to change that then good luck because in nearly six thousand years of history that relationship hasn't really changed. It started a very long time before that. So the death of 150,000 people (estimated) of which the majority were civilians makes you feel nothing but thanks that is wasn't you. "There But For The grace Of God" Personally I don't think it went far enough, the 73 SCOTUS decision was a very more conservative one than they could have made, they could have decided that abortion was a right at anytime for any reason with no state being able to impose restrictions .. such as they have in Canada, interestingly Canada's teenage pregnancy and abortion rate is LOWER than the USA, as it numerous other countries who have far more liberal laws than the US. As would I, hence why I said that the book would have more credence to me had it been written by someone who is apathetic as far as the abortion debate is concerned. There you see, with those three words you have already put forward your hope of what the book achieves . .that is the bias. hmm, if Roe had gone the other way, would we be sitting here with me saying almost exactly the same thing as you have. No matter what decision was made there would have been people looking for reasons to go against it, I think I can honestly say that-that is the case with almost all decisions made by SCOTUS .. hence why I say our opinions are formed by our bias. Only with the benefit of hindsight do we know what is truth and what is opinion, and even then that truth can change as we understand more about the issue. Oh so true
