| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| If Roe vs. Wade gets overturned. . . | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 23 2006, 06:15 PM (888 Views) | |
| Mark | Jan 24 2006, 09:45 PM Post #51 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Because I think slavery is asinine. But I misinterpreted your intent. I was wrong. Sorry. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 25 2006, 06:54 AM Post #52 |
|
This whole slavery debate, IMO, depends on many factors... The size of the country with anarchy. The USA would crumble and would generally be a bad place to live if we had anarchy. But a small country like New Zealand would do pretty well... It also depends on the level of slavery. 19th century slavery in the USA was a cake-walk compared to say, the Egyptian enslavement of Israelites. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jan 25 2006, 06:58 AM Post #53 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
... New Zealand would do pretty well in a state of anarchy? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 25 2006, 07:02 AM Post #54 |
|
__________________ (insert small country here) ...especially compared to the USA or other large country. |
![]() |
|
| gryphon | Jan 25 2006, 07:42 PM Post #55 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Because it's bad law. Everyone agrees it's bad law. Even O'Connor. Even Ginsburg! You know why we still have Roe v. Wade? Because O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter argued not that the ruling stating that abortion was a right was true and correct, but because the court had claimed it was (a limited right) 19 years prior. (Never mind that the law Roe addressed had been in place for more than 100 years). Precedent. Not right or wrong. O'Connor even said (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) that women now depended on it so they couldn't change it. Good argument, eh? |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." Learn More · Register Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








6:45 AM Jul 11