Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
NEWS BOX
We last left off where Seth decided to go to Valor on his black dragon Erath. And when he got there...And if anyone forgot the story, Kyan found his long lost friend Seth on Valor, and his black dragon Erath. Kyan is a mamkute that can still use swords as well as dragon stone attack.
Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
Second Republican Presidential debate is tonight.
Topic Started: May 15 2007, 06:23:33 PM (1,132 Views)
rnn2walls
Member Avatar
*does a backflip*
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 22:31:15
Presidential power and money can do anything.

Why would Romney be more likely than Paul, you ask? Because he says he wants to. Ron Paul says nothing about that. That is the critical difference between Romney and Paul's ideas on abortion-- Romney is more extreme.

Not when the opposite party rules Congress and you don't control everyone in the court.

And sources, or it never happened. Neither likes abortion, but neither wants the Federal Government to do anything about it. That's the extent of things. You're getting way overworked about something that's not going to happen.
The opinions expressed in the above post are totally and completely correct. If you disagree with them, you are wrong, there's just no other way to put it.

I've seen knights in armor panic at the first hint of battle. And I've seen the lowliest, unarmed squire pull a spear from his own body, to defend a dying horse. Nobility is not a birthright. It's defined by one's actions.
-Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves


Khairos,Jul 25 2006
19:36:54
rnn ftw!
CO Gage,Jul 12 2008
01:21:34
rnn ftw!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

From the wiki: "Romney's current stance, as described on his campaign Web site, effectively calls for a repeal of Roe vs. Wade, saying that "the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.""

I'm not getting worked up. It is a very possible threat.

I'm telling you now, that if he does something like that, I will kill him. No questions asked, I will become a bounty hunter.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

As far as I'm concerned, repealing Roe v. Wade would not be a bad thing; it depends on what decision the Supreme Court replaces it with. Putting aside the question of whether or not abortion is murder and all that, the Roe v. Wade decision was still a pretty terrible ruling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 21:24:02
As far as I'm concerned, repealing Roe v. Wade would not be a bad thing; it depends on what decision the Supreme Court replaces it with. Putting aside the question of whether or not abortion is murder and all that, the Roe v. Wade decision was still a pretty terrible ruling.

What, that it is unconstitutional to deny someone their rights?

Yeah, I see that as a horrible verdict, too.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 23:30:46
Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 21:24:02
As far as I'm concerned, repealing Roe v. Wade would not be a bad thing; it depends on what decision the Supreme Court replaces it with. Putting aside the question of whether or not abortion is murder and all that, the Roe v. Wade decision was still a pretty terrible ruling.

What, that it is unconstitutional to deny someone their rights?

Yeah, I see that as a horrible verdict, too.

Liberal legal criticisms

Liberal legal scholars have criticized Roe, despite their opposition to pro-life laws, arguing that the ends achieved by Roe do not justify the means.[20]

William Saletan, for example, has written that "Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."[21] In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[22] Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure."

Similarly, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe has noted that, "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."[23] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: "[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."[24]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade for terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion law.[25] Likewise, legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen[26] and Michael Kinsley[27] say that a democratic movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.

Legal analyst Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply".[28] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe’s author like a grandfather" wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."[29] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[30]Cass Sunstein, [31] and Kermit Roosevelt[32] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.


IIRC, it also led to government-sponsored abortions, but that might have been a seperate act of government buffoonery.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

So by protecting a Constitutional right, it is and of itself unconstitutional?
Interesting.

It is still fine by me. I honestly don't care how Constitutional it is. I know that it keeps abortion from being outright banned, and sticks it to the worthless religious peoples. If something does that, I don't care how legal it is.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 23:56:50
So by protecting a Constitutional right, it is and of itself unconstitutional?
Interesting.

It is still fine by me. I honestly don't care how Constitutional it is. I know that it keeps abortion from being outright banned, and sticks it to the worthless religious peoples. If something does that, I don't care how legal it is.

But that's the thing - Abortion is not a constitutional right. You'd have to be either a moron or a Supreme Court Justice (Wait, those are the same thing.) to think it is.
If decided in the way I prefer, the repeal of Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion - the ruling would make it would make it a state issue again, the way things were before 1973.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:03:02
F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 23:56:50
So by protecting a Constitutional right, it is and of itself unconstitutional?
Interesting.

It is still fine by me. I honestly don't care how Constitutional it is. I know that it keeps abortion from being outright banned, and sticks it to the worthless religious peoples. If something does that, I don't care how legal it is.

But that's the thing - Abortion is not a constitutional right. You'd have to be either a moron or a Supreme Court Justice (Wait, those are the same thing.) to think it is.
If decided in the way I prefer, the repeal of Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion - the ruling would make it would make it a state issue again, the way things were before 1973.

Which would turn it into maybe...3 states having legal abortions, while the others ban it. And then put cameras in your houses. And then require you to only fornicate in the missionary position. And then go to church twice weekly.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
GyroNinja
Member Avatar
Guy Who Posts a Lot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
F3nr1L
May 19 2007, 15:08:27
Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:03:02
F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 23:56:50
So by protecting a Constitutional right, it is and of itself unconstitutional?
Interesting.

It is still fine by me. I honestly don't care how Constitutional it is. I know that it keeps abortion from being outright banned, and sticks it to the worthless religious peoples. If something does that, I don't care how legal it is.

But that's the thing - Abortion is not a constitutional right. You'd have to be either a moron or a Supreme Court Justice (Wait, those are the same thing.) to think it is.
If decided in the way I prefer, the repeal of Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion - the ruling would make it would make it a state issue again, the way things were before 1973.

Which would turn it into maybe...3 states having legal abortions, while the others ban it. And then put cameras in your houses. And then require you to only fornicate in the missionary position. And then go to church twice weekly.

I'm glad Fen is so good at keeping things in perspective.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

F3nr1L
May 19 2007, 00:08:27
Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:03:02
F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 23:56:50
So by protecting a Constitutional right, it is and of itself unconstitutional?
Interesting.

It is still fine by me. I honestly don't care how Constitutional it is. I know that it keeps abortion from being outright banned, and sticks it to the worthless religious peoples. If something does that, I don't care how legal it is.

But that's the thing - Abortion is not a constitutional right. You'd have to be either a moron or a Supreme Court Justice (Wait, those are the same thing.) to think it is.
If decided in the way I prefer, the repeal of Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion - the ruling would make it would make it a state issue again, the way things were before 1973.

Which would turn it into maybe...3 states having legal abortions, while the others ban it. And then put cameras in your houses. And then require you to only fornicate in the missionary position. And then go to church twice weekly.

Lol, no. To begin with, more states than that already had legalized abortion before the Roe v. Wade ruling. Nowdays, it would likely be legal in the vast majority of states. The rest isn't worth responding to. >_>

And what so many people don't seem to get is that Roe v. Wade is what more than anything else caused the rise of the Religious Right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:11:50
F3nr1L
May 19 2007, 00:08:27
Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:03:02
F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 23:56:50
So by protecting a Constitutional right, it is and of itself unconstitutional?
Interesting.

It is still fine by me. I honestly don't care how Constitutional it is. I know that it keeps abortion from being outright banned, and sticks it to the worthless religious peoples. If something does that, I don't care how legal it is.

But that's the thing - Abortion is not a constitutional right. You'd have to be either a moron or a Supreme Court Justice (Wait, those are the same thing.) to think it is.
If decided in the way I prefer, the repeal of Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion - the ruling would make it would make it a state issue again, the way things were before 1973.

Which would turn it into maybe...3 states having legal abortions, while the others ban it. And then put cameras in your houses. And then require you to only fornicate in the missionary position. And then go to church twice weekly.

Lol, no. To begin with, more states than that already had legalized abortion before the Roe v. Wade ruling. Nowdays, it would likely be legal in the vast majority of states. The rest isn't worth responding to. >_>

And what so many people don't seem to get is that Roe v. Wade is what more than anything else caused the rise of the Religious Right.

I don't see how that makes sense.


That's like saying that the Rebels caused the Empire to exist in the first place.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stone Kirby
Member Avatar
¢¾¢Ü!?

F3nr1L
May 19 2007, 00:47:57
Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:11:50
F3nr1L
May 19 2007, 00:08:27
Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:03:02
F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 23:56:50
So by protecting a Constitutional right, it is and of itself unconstitutional?
Interesting.

It is still fine by me. I honestly don't care how Constitutional it is. I know that it keeps abortion from being outright banned, and sticks it to the worthless religious peoples. If something does that, I don't care how legal it is.

But that's the thing - Abortion is not a constitutional right. You'd have to be either a moron or a Supreme Court Justice (Wait, those are the same thing.) to think it is.
If decided in the way I prefer, the repeal of Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion - the ruling would make it would make it a state issue again, the way things were before 1973.

Which would turn it into maybe...3 states having legal abortions, while the others ban it. And then put cameras in your houses. And then require you to only fornicate in the missionary position. And then go to church twice weekly.

Lol, no. To begin with, more states than that already had legalized abortion before the Roe v. Wade ruling. Nowdays, it would likely be legal in the vast majority of states. The rest isn't worth responding to. >_>

And what so many people don't seem to get is that Roe v. Wade is what more than anything else caused the rise of the Religious Right.

I don't see how that makes sense.


That's like saying that the Rebels caused the Empire to exist in the first place.

No, it's like saying that 9/11 was the result of blowback from an aggressive American foreign policy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
reknamarken
Member Avatar
Gnarls Barkley
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I love how Fen thinks all Pro-life people are super-religious and worthless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abyssal_Shrimp
Member Avatar
GREGOR SMASH!

I recognize Fen's "I lost, but I continue to bicker" tactics. Knock it off. >_>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Abysmal_Shrimp
May 19 2007, 05:32:17
F3nr1L
May 19 2007, 00:47:57
Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:11:50
F3nr1L
May 19 2007, 00:08:27
Abysmal_Shrimp
May 18 2007, 22:03:02
F3nr1L
May 18 2007, 23:56:50
So by protecting a Constitutional right, it is and of itself unconstitutional?
Interesting.

It is still fine by me. I honestly don't care how Constitutional it is. I know that it keeps abortion from being outright banned, and sticks it to the worthless religious peoples. If something does that, I don't care how legal it is.

But that's the thing - Abortion is not a constitutional right. You'd have to be either a moron or a Supreme Court Justice (Wait, those are the same thing.) to think it is.
If decided in the way I prefer, the repeal of Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion - the ruling would make it would make it a state issue again, the way things were before 1973.

Which would turn it into maybe...3 states having legal abortions, while the others ban it. And then put cameras in your houses. And then require you to only fornicate in the missionary position. And then go to church twice weekly.

Lol, no. To begin with, more states than that already had legalized abortion before the Roe v. Wade ruling. Nowdays, it would likely be legal in the vast majority of states. The rest isn't worth responding to. >_>

And what so many people don't seem to get is that Roe v. Wade is what more than anything else caused the rise of the Religious Right.

I don't see how that makes sense.


That's like saying that the Rebels caused the Empire to exist in the first place.

No, it's like saying that 9/11 was the result of blowback from an aggressive American foreign policy.

touché.

I still don't understand how that's applicable to Roe v. Wade, but whatever.



Any time I say, mention Star Wars in a serious debate, it is pretty obvious you should just consider it Godwin's Law. >.>;
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4

Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ