NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry, I don't know what or how, but it was claimed that we had a new legal framework created by Roe v Wade, I wanted to get the poster to actually create a thread about it rather derailing a thread about same-sex marriage.

So, anyone want to defend that Roe v. Wade created a new legal framework?

Your argument is at odds with the history of the SCOTUS itself. The Court invented an entirely new legal framework for obtaining abortions in Roe v. Wade.

I can't fathom a definition for entirely new legal framework that would fit with what Roe v Wade was. Vamosa is willing to defend this. I'm not baiting him. I just didn't us to derail the other thread.

I don't recall in reading the opinion that RvW did anything new, just extended previous judgments into new areas.

Now, Grissom (IIRC, I might have the case wrong) could be said to do that as it's the one that set up the whole right to privacy with regards to reproduction and medical options, but even that can be traced back further.

I agree. As I said, I absoltutely can't think of what about that case could be called "an entirely new legal framework".

I just created a new thread addressing polygamous marriage and equal protection. In it, I address this argument. Please take a look at it.

Roe did not create any new legal framework. It merely applied an existing framework in a somewhat newish way. This is based on the decision itself. Referring to that other thread, it sure as hell did not do what Vamosa claimed it did, nor did it do anything in the way he said it did.

Oh, and thanks loads, J. He got around to posting his polygamy thread, which you boys encouraged him to do. I was sooo looking forward to more of that stuff. :rolleyes: ;)

I just created a new thread addressing polygamous marriage and equal protection. In it, I address this argument. Please take a look at it.

What does this argument have to do with polygamous marriage or equal protection? :confused:

...it was claimed that we had a new legal framework created by Roe v Wade
This is an international forum, so I'm sure some people would appreciate it that you not assume everyone on this board is American.

I'm not sure Roe created a new legal framework by itself. However it is part of the more liberal trend of the court and the idea of the "living" consitution. With this new(imo dangerous) philosphy justices have moved away from deciding what the law is, into creating law. Rights come from within the constitution, yet the rights of Roe are found no where within the constitution. Unfortunately due to stare decisis and the common law system, this flawed decision is unlike to be overturned soon. That is unless the bench can be made up of more justices who interpret based on what they constitution says, and not what they want it to say.

What does this argument have to do with polygamous marriage or equal protection? :confused:
Apparently, Vamosa has an issue with keeping his topics separate. He managed to bring up both Roe and polygamy in a thread about gay marriage in California. So I guess it's natural that he would address Roe in a polygamy thread.

This is an international forum, so I'm sure some people would appreciate it that you not assume everyone on this board is American.

Roe is a US legal decision. It has absolutely no bearing or relevance to any country's laws but the USA. So if you want to argue about Roe v Wade, you are going to have to discuss it in US terms.

This is an international forum, so I'm sure some people would appreciate it that you not assume everyone on this board is American.

I have to change my pronouns to protect your sensitivities? I'm American. Thus WE is entirely appropriate for me to say about Americans. Sorry if you don't like the proper usage of pronouns.

That said, here, folks, is the "entirely new legal framework".

Take a look at Roe v. Wade. Prior to the ruling, all fifty states had laws banning abortion, with exceptions varying state to state based on incest, rape, etc. The ruling, however, established a trimester framework for the sole purpose of setting guidelines for legislation passed in response to the ruling. The trimester framework cited a “state’s compelling interest” in the life of the developing embryo/fetus, stating what actions the state could take from trimester to trimester. For example, in third trimester, the Court gave states the authority to ban abortion out-and-out, with exceptions made for the life and health of the mother. Considering that every criminal abortion law existing at the time of the ruling was unconstitutional after the ruling, why else would the Court cite what actions states could and could not take based on the trimester of the pregnancy if they were not in fact setting guidelines for future legislation based on the ruling? The precedent of this case thus dispels any notion that SCOTUS cannot make a decision that would necessitate state governments to pass new legislation. Not only did this occur in Roe v. Wade, but in fact, the ruling was designed with this purpose in mind. Thus, SCOTUS would be violating no legal principle, but in fact following precedent in handing down a decision that would require legislatures to pass new legislation.

And, yes, it needs it's own thread.

Now, the court cited what could and could not be passed SO new legislation COULD be passed. They didn't require it. I don't think you know what require means.

I'm not sure Roe created a new legal framework by itself. However it is part of the more liberal trend of the court and the idea of the "living" consitution. With this new(imo dangerous) philosphy justices have moved away from deciding what the law is, into creating law. Rights come from within the constitution, yet the rights of Roe are found no where within the constitution. Unfortunately due to stare decisis and the common law system, this flawed decision is unlike to be overturned soon. That is unless the bench can be made up of more justices who interpret based on what they constitution says, and not what they want it to say.
Judicial review, "living" constitution, and liberalism are NOT new philosophies in the US. We've been doing it that way for as long as the country has existed. And no, the justices in Roe did not create a law. They merely decided on a appropriate application of a law. And that IS well within their proper function.

Roe did not create any new legal framework. It merely applied an existing framework in a somewhat newish way. This is based on the decision itself. Referring to that other thread, it sure as hell did not do what Vamosa claimed it did, nor did it do anything in the way he said it did.

Oh, and thanks loads, J. He got around to posting his polygamy thread, which you boys encouraged him to do. I was sooo looking forward to more of that stuff. :rolleyes: ;)

The best thing for darkness is to turn on the light.

It merely applied an existing framework in a somewhat newish way.
A "somewhat newish way..." Hmm. So it wasn't a new legal framework, just new-ish. Right.

Let me walk everyone through my logic. In the ruling, the Court created a trimester formula, cited here:
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.


(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.


(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.



Prior to the ruling, this above framework did not exist on any state or federal law book, whatsoever. Its introduction into law was only due to its construction in Roe v. Wade. Thus, the ruling did create a new legal framework for states to follow that was not a part of any state or federal law prior to the decision. Thus, a new legal framework was established in Roe v. Wade.

I really don't understand why that's such a controversial concept. It's clear-cut and obvious.

A "somewhat newish way..." Hmm. So it wasn't a new legal framework, just new-ish. Right.

Um, new application does not a new "legal framework" make. Loving was a new application. it was a "entirely new legal framework". The level of hyperbole in that statement is astounding.


Let me walk everyone through my logic. In the ruling, the Court created a trimester formula, cited here:

Prior to the ruling, this above framework did not exist on any state or federal law book, whatsoever. Its introduction into law was only due to its construction in Roe v. Wade. Thus, the ruling did create a new legal framework for states to follow that was not a part of any state or federal law prior to the decision. Thus, a new legal framework was established in Roe v. Wade.

I really don't understand why that's such a controversial concept. It's clear-cut and obvious.

It's not a legal framework. It was simply a ruling. That's what they do. Commonlaw systems use and create precedent. It's very common to explain what the precedent being created it is and the specifics of it. It wasn't a new legal framework, it was defining something to make sure the precedent was applied properly.

It's absolutely common. In Loving and other cases I've cited they defined the right of marriage. They did it so people would realize how it applies. Thank God they did, too, because it's going to be responsible for getting same-sex marriage recognized.

Did Loving create an "entirely new legal framework" as well? Does every case that defines a concept and how it applies?

Judicial review, "living" constitution, and liberalism are NOT new philosophies in the US. We've been doing it that way for as long as the country has existed. And no, the justices in Roe did not create a law. They merely decided on a appropriate application of a law. And that IS well within their proper function.

I'm too tired to think, any argument I give now will be incoherent. I'll pick this up tommorrow.

Some people argue that in this case the Supreme court pretty much dictated abortion as though it were righting the law. However this is nothing new.

As this had been going on since the civil rights movement, at those types of rulings were needed.


However I disagree with the supreme courts ruling in this matter since all rights that can be argued for the mother could also be argued for the child as well.
Traditionally the Supreme court has allowed such matters to be governed by the legislature.

The best thing for darkness is to turn on the light.
I hear it's good for mold and mildew, too.

A "somewhat newish way..." Hmm. So it wasn't a new legal framework, just new-ish. Right.
It helps if you read ALL the words in the sentence. I did not say it was a newish framework. I said it was a newish application of an existing framework. Just like if you serve new food on an old dish, it doesn't make the dish new.

Let me walk everyone through my logic.
Wait until I stop laughing. :D

In the ruling, the Court created a trimester formula, cited here:

Prior to the ruling, this above framework did not exist on any state or federal law book, whatsoever. Its introduction into law was only due to its construction in Roe v. Wade. Thus, the ruling did create a new legal framework for states to follow that was not a part of any state or federal law prior to the decision. Thus, a new legal framework was established in Roe v. Wade.
You're wrong on two fronts, as follows:

1) What the Congress did after Roe is called legislation by Congress. It is not called justices creating a law or a new legal framework. Even if a new legal framework had been created -- which it wasn't -- it was not created by Roe. So you fail on that score.

2) Measuring trimesters is a medical framework, not a legal one. Therefore, judging abortion by trimester is not a new legal framework because it is not a legal framework at all. So you fail on that score as well. As for designating a unit of measure in order to establish a timeframe within which certain things must be done or not done -- I certainly hope you weren't trying to claim that that was a new concept in law.

I really don't understand why that's such a controversial concept. It's clear-cut and obvious.
It absolutely is clear-cut and obvious that your argument is completely specious.

Um, new application does not a new "legal framework" make. Loving was a new application. it was a "entirely new legal framework". The level of hyperbole in that statement is astounding.

It's not a legal framework. It was simply a ruling. That's what they do. Commonlaw systems use and create precedent. It's very common to explain what the precedent being created it is and the specifics of it. It wasn't a new legal framework, it was defining something to make sure the precedent was applied properly.

It's absolutely common. In Loving and other cases I've cited they defined the right of marriage. They did it so people would realize how it applies. Thank God they did, too, because it's going to be responsible for getting same-sex marriage recognized.

Did Loving create an "entirely new legal framework" as well? Does every case that defines a concept and how it applies?

Loving and other such cases simply invalidated or upheld a specific law. Roe v. Wade actually created a whole new set of guidelines -- a new legal framework. That's what I meant when I originally made the statement that sparked this read. It's really not that revolutionary of a concept, and I certainly do not see why it's worthy of such lengthy discussion.

Some people argue that in this case the Supreme court pretty much dictated abortion as though it were righting the law. However this is nothing new.

As this had been going on since the civil rights movement, at those types of rulings were needed.


However I disagree with the supreme courts ruling in this matter since all rights that can be argued for the mother could also be argued for the child as well.
Traditionally the Supreme court has allowed such matters to be governed by the legislature.
Except for the fact that, before birth, a child does not exist as a legal person falling under the jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore no rights can be argued for a child that does not yet exist, legally.

Loving and other such cases simply invalidated or upheld a specific law. Roe v. Wade actually created a whole new set of guidelines -- a new legal framework. That's what I meant when I originally made the statement that sparked this read. It's really not that revolutionary of a concept, and I certainly do not see why it's worthy of such lengthy discussion.
No, it didn't, and it has been explained to you several times over two thread just how and why it didn't. Your failure to address those explanations will not change that. Your insistance on repeating an already debunked argument won't change it, either.

It helps if you read ALL the words in the sentence. I did not say it was a newish framework. I said it was a newish application of an existing framework. Just like if you serve new food on an old dish, it doesn't make the dish new.
Except, the framework cited in Roe wasn't existing -- it could be found no where, not in any law book in the nation, when the case was decided.

You're wrong on two fronts, as follows:

1) What the Congress did after Roe is called legislation by Congress. It is not called justices creating a law or a new legal framework. Even if a new legal framework had been created -- which it wasn't -- it was not created by Roe. So you fail on that score.
And what guidelines did legislatures look to when they passed new legislation? Ah yes -- those set forth in Roe. I would even call those guidelines a...dare I say....framework that the legislatures had to abide by. That's all that I was getting at: that the legislatures had to follow specific instructions handed down by the Court in pass new laws. Call it whatever you want, a framework or not, but what the Court did in Roe was not merely uphold or strike down a law, but create very detailed rules that legislatures had to follow.


2) Measuring trimesters is a medical framework, not a legal one. Therefore, judging abortion by trimester is not a new legal framework because it is not a legal framework at all. So you fail on that score as well. As for designating a unit of measure in order to establish a timeframe within which certain things must be done or not done -- I certainly hope you weren't trying to claim that that was a new concept in law.
Wow, you are really, really reaching now. In fact, I'd say you're just plain desperate. The trimester formula constructed by the Court was based on medical reasons -- so what? How does that offer anything new to this debate? Meanwhile, judging time frames was nothing new, but this particular trimester formula was an entirely new legal concept.

Loving and other such cases simply invalidated or upheld a specific law. Roe v. Wade actually created a whole new set of guidelines -- a new legal framework. That's what I meant when I originally made the statement that sparked this read. It's really not that revolutionary of a concept, and I certainly do not see why it's worthy of such lengthy discussion.

The same could be said of Roe v. Wade. Loving and cases like defined marriage to ensure that their precedent would be applied properly. Roe did the same.

Regardless, I'm not sure what you think an "entirely new legal framework" is, but a legal framework means the entire system around such a thing was created anew. There is NO application of RvW that supports that claim.

Except, the framework cited in Roe wasn't existing -- it could be found no where, not in any law book in the nation, when the case was decided.

Um, except the DEFINITION they offered wasn't the framework. The constitution and the amendments as well as precedent was the framework. The defintion you keep mentioning was simply an explanation designed to qualify the usage of this precedent. It's been done before and since. For example the explanation that marriage was an individual right did not exist in the laws of our country prior to when it being explained in their rulings. That's a not a new legal framework. In fact it was the old legal framework that allowed it.

And what guidelines did legislatures look to when they passed new legislation? Ah yes -- those set forth in Roe. I would even call those guidelines a...dare I say....framework that the legislatures had to abide by. That's all that I was getting at: that the legislatures had to follow specific instructions handed down by the Court in pass new laws. Call it whatever you want, a framework or not, but what the Court did in Roe was not merely uphold or strike down a law, but create very detailed rules that legislatures had to follow.

You mean that when legislatures create LEGISLATION they actually look at legal precedent to determing what will or will not be constitutional. The hell you say?

Strangely, they do the same when they pass laws to make the work place safe and fair. They do the same when passing laws on marriage. This isn't new. It's older than the US.

Wow, you are really, really reaching now. In fact, I'd say you're just plain desperate. The trimester formula constructed by the Court was based on medical reasons -- so what? How does that offer anything new to this debate? Meanwhile, judging time frames was nothing new, but this particular trimester formula was an entirely new legal concept.

Perhaps you don't know what a legal framework it is. But it's the ENTIRE legal code surrounding a subject. According to you, much of their ruling was based on precedent and the US Constitution. Perhaps you aren't aware what that means, but we're quite aware that it's part of the legal framework on which RvW was built.

Except for the fact that, before birth, a child does not exist as a legal person falling under the jurisdiction of the courts. Therefore no rights can be argued for a child that does not yet exist, legally.



Really ??? where prey tell in the constitution does it say that ?
Because many states had afforded these legal protections to unborn children prior to roe V wade. also if I were to assault a pregnant woman and she mis carried because of the assault I would be held more legally responsible and be sentenced to a longer term in jail.

and what sort of ideology is that anyways?
Next you will suggest that the state does not have the right to legislate on illegal aliens since they are not American citizens. Or How about Gitmo Detainees ? Not American citizens not on US Soil, I am taking that you support the Bush administration's view that those in gitmo can not be ruled on by the Supreme court?

rights need to be inclusive not exclusive.

This is probably the most ridiculous argument I've ever been a party to in my entire life. I simply pointed out that Roe v. Wade created a new set of guidelines for legislatures to follow. Period. There's nothing untrue, nor nothing worth being controversial about in that statement. Jocabia and Muravyets, you continue to shift the discussion inane points like "It wasn't a legal framework, it was a medical one!" (strawman) or, "The 'framework' was the Constitution!" (diversion), all of which are picking at semantics in order to make it seem as if you have succeeded in dismantling some point that I've made.

Anyone can see that Roe v. Wade did not operate the way that most SCOTUS cases do. Most either affirm that a law is constitutional, or a law is unconstitutional. Anyone with a seventh grade education could tell you that. Roe, however, gave a specific set of guidelines for legislatures to follow, unlike, say...Loving, which simply overturned a certain law. That's. All. I. Was. Saying.

You know, I'll take a gander about why both of you are making a hurricane out of a light sprinkle. Roe v. Wade is like the holy grail of modern liberal politics. People show an intense defensiveness about it because it's been questioned so much, and because it laid the foundation for so much of what the modern liberal movement is about. Therefore, to even suggest that it has some distinction that might set it apart from other cases even slightly is blasphemous. Personally, I'm fed up with participating in such a ridiculous discussion because the two of you are overly-sensitive. I refuse to participate in this thread any longer, because it's just become a ridiculous exercise in arguing about semantics and introducing strawmen so as to defend what you view as the integrity of Roe at any cost.

Vamosa is not entirely incorrect in terms of calling the trimester ruling as probably overstepping the role of SCOTUS in terms of initiating legislation, providing it with, in broad terms, a possibly new role that was never in the constitution.

One of my concerns with your opinion as presently written is … in its fixing of the end of the first trimester as the critical point for valid state action. … I wonder about the desirability of the dicta being quite so inflexibly “legislative.”

My present inclination would be to allow the states more latitude to make policy judgments. - Justice Blackmun

“Everyone in the Supreme Court, all the justices, all the law clerks knew it was ‘legislative’ or ‘arbitrary.’” - Geoffrey R. Stone, a law clerk to Justice Brennan when Roe was decided

The key elements of the Roe framework—trimesters and viability—are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle. … The result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations rather than a body of constitutional doctrine. As Justice White has put it, the trimester framework has left this Court to serve as the country’s “ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.” - Justice Rehnquist in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Entirely new legal framework? Certainly not, over-extending the legal duties of SCOTUS, very arguably.

Many people have said, and even those who support abortion, that Roe vs. Wade is poor law, in fact, supporter of the right to choose say that it's that very poor legal framework that has made it so attackable.

This is probably the most ridiculous argument I've ever been a party to in my entire life. I simply pointed out that Roe v. Wade created a new set of guidelines for legislatures to follow. Period. There's nothing untrue, nor nothing worth being controversial about in that statement. Jocabia and Muravyets, you continue to shift the discussion inane points like "It wasn't a legal framework, it was a medical one!" (strawman) or, "The 'framework' was the Constitution!" (diversion), all of which are picking at semantics in order to make it seem as if you have succeeded in dismantling some point that I've made.

Anyone can see that Roe v. Wade did not operate the way that most SCOTUS cases do. Most either affirm that a law is constitutional, or a law is unconstitutional. Anyone with a seventh grade education could tell you that. Roe, however, gave a specific set of guidelines for legislatures to follow, unlike, say...Loving, which simply overturned a certain law. That's. All. I. Was. Saying.

You know, I'll take a gander about why both of you are making a hurricane out of a light sprinkle. Roe v. Wade is like the holy grail of modern liberal politics. People show an intense defensiveness about it because it's been questioned so much, and because it laid the foundation for so much of what the modern liberal movement is about. Therefore, to even suggest that it has some distinction that might set it apart from other cases even slightly is blasphemous. Personally, I'm fed up with participating in such a ridiculous discussion because the two of you are overly-sensitive. I refuse to participate in this thread any longer, because it's just become a ridiculous exercise in arguing about semantics and introducing strawmen so as to defend what you view as the integrity of Roe at any cost.

Yes, I've noticed exactly how dramatically you've altered those goalposts. You're going well at that. We were talking about whether SCOTUS creates new legislation, or if they required the legislature to do so. You changed that into "an entirely new legal framework". Now it's a "set of guidelines".

Regardless, you've failed on every count. You've finally come around to admitting SCOTUS did what SCOTUS does, which is to set precedent and define it's application. I accept your concession.

Vamosa is not entirely incorrect in terms of calling the trimester ruling as probably overstepping the role of SCOTUS in terms of initiating legislation, providing it with, in broad terms, a possibly new role that was never in the constitution.

One of my concerns with your opinion as presently written is … in its fixing of the end of the first trimester as the critical point for valid state action. … I wonder about the desirability of the dicta being quite so inflexibly “legislative.”

My present inclination would be to allow the states more latitude to make policy judgments. - Justice Blackmun

“Everyone in the Supreme Court, all the justices, all the law clerks knew it was ‘legislative’ or ‘arbitrary.’” - Geoffrey R. Stone, a law clerk to Justice Brennan when Roe was decided

The key elements of the Roe framework—trimesters and viability—are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle. … The result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations rather than a body of constitutional doctrine. As Justice White has put it, the trimester framework has left this Court to serve as the country’s “ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.” - Justice Rehnquist in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

Entirely new legal framework? Certainly not, over-extending the legal duties of SCOTUS, very arguably.

Many people have said, and even those who support abortion, that Roe vs. Wade is poor law, in fact, supporter of the right to choose say that it's that very poor legal framework that has made it so attackable.

Of course, there is an argument there. That's the problem. While Vamosa tends to set up strawmen when he loses arguments, no one here is trying to protect the "liberal holy grail" just as I wasn't arguing against legalizing polygamy in the other thread. I'm happy to debate the merits of Roe v Wade. And I'm happy to discuss certain elements of it, like you bring up. However, as you also acknowledge, there simply isn't an argument for "entirely new legal framework".

Yes, I've noticed exactly how dramatically you've altered those goalposts. You're going well at that. We were talking about whether SCOTUS creates new legislation, or if they required the legislature to do so.
I never said one word about SCOTUS creating new legislation. That was entirely on your part.
You changed that into "an entirely new legal framework". Now it's a "set of guidelines".
That's the biggest strawman you've come up with yet. I used both phrases interchangeably. I made that quite clear in this thread.
I would even call those guidelines a...dare I say....framework that the legislatures had to abide by.
Roe v. Wade actually created a whole new set of guidelines -- a new legal framework.

Guidelines...framework. They both mean the same thing. You're picking at semantics to try to claim victory. I've enunciated many times in many different forms of language what my point was.
Roe, however, gave a specific set of guidelines for legislatures to follow, unlike, say...Loving, which simply overturned a certain law.
That's all that I was getting at: that the legislatures had to follow specific instructions handed down by the Court in pass new laws.

Regardless, you've failed on every count. You've finally come around to admitting SCOTUS did what SCOTUS does, which is to set precedent and define it's application. I accept your concession.

True to form, you pull a concession out of thin air, much like many of the points you've made in this thread. Bravo.

I never said one word about SCOTUS creating new legislation. That was entirely on your part.

I brought it up. You disagreed when I brought it up. Perhaps you don't know what that means. See, when you disagree with me saying that they DON'T make legislation, you are saying they do.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700966&postcount=472

Notice I said they don't make legislation and you said history disagreed with me.

Yes, I know you'll deny that it means as much, but you're not the only one reading and the people reading aren't changing their argument every time they're proven wrong.


That's the biggest strawman you've come up with yet. I used both phrases interchangeably. I made that quite clear in this thread.

IN THIS THREAD. However, this thread wasn't where you originally made the claim. They are NOT the same thing. If you don't recognize this, then perhaps you should stick to using words you're more familiar with.



Guidelines...framework. They both mean the same thing. You're picking at semantics to try to claim victory. I've enunciated many times in many different forms of language what my point was.

No, they don't. Legal framework has an actual usage. It's vastly different from some guidelines. And certainly the guidelines adding to the current precendent is the same as claiming they created "an entirely new legal framework". The entirely new is as relevant. Because the term legal framework applies in such a broad way.


True to form, you pull a concession out of thin air, much like many of the points you've made in this thread. Bravo.

You've changed your argument throughout the thread until you finally start agreeing with me. If your initial claim would have been that Roe v Wade offered explanation for the application of their decision, guidelines for how it applies, like EVERY decision they've EVER made, then we'd have not disagreed.

Except, the framework cited in Roe wasn't existing -- it could be found no where, not in any law book in the nation, when the case was decided.


And what guidelines did legislatures look to when they passed new legislation? Ah yes -- those set forth in Roe. I would even call those guidelines a...dare I say....framework that the legislatures had to abide by. That's all that I was getting at: that the legislatures had to follow specific instructions handed down by the Court in pass new laws. Call it whatever you want, a framework or not, but what the Court did in Roe was not merely uphold or strike down a law, but create very detailed rules that legislatures had to follow.



Wow, you are really, really reaching now. In fact, I'd say you're just plain desperate. The trimester formula constructed by the Court was based on medical reasons -- so what? How does that offer anything new to this debate? Meanwhile, judging time frames was nothing new, but this particular trimester formula was an entirely new legal concept.
I refer you to Jocabia's response because he took the words right out my mouth. And you're wrong.

Also, how do you know all the sources of information the Congress may have consulted when developing those guidelines? Doing something in response to a court ruling =/= operating under orders of the court. You still fail at insisting that the court created a law that was actually created by the Congress.

Really ??? where prey tell in the constitution does it say that ?
I made no reference to the Constitution.

I merely said what the law does. For purposes of applying the rights of persons, the law defines a legal standard of what constitutes a "person." Unborn fetuses do not qualify because they lack the traits of a person that are accepted by the law.

Now if you want to change that, then there's a whole political system to allow you to try to get that done. You're part of the way along already, since the third trimester is recognized as a gray area in which it is considered highly likely that a person with rights will soon manifest and that therefore SOME rights can be protected on its behalf but in the absence of its petition.

But as things stand now, embryos and non-viable fetuses (pre-third-trimester) are not persons, and the courts have no jurisdiction over them and are not qualified to judge arguments about any rights that might be claimed for them.

Because many states had afforded these legal protections to unborn children prior to roe V wade. also if I were to assault a pregnant woman and she mis carried because of the assault I would be held more legally responsible and be sentenced to a longer term in jail.
So you say, but after many years of knocking down this very same argument here on NSG, I can tell you the supporting evidence for your claim about what states do is extremely weak. But good luck with it, if you want to pursue it.

and what sort of ideology is that anyways?
Next you will suggest that the state does not have the right to legislate on illegal aliens since they are not American citizens. Or How about Gitmo Detainees ? Not American citizens not on US Soil, I am taking that you support the Bush administration's view that those in gitmo can not be ruled on by the Supreme court?
HAHAHAHA! Good one. :D

But seriously, "and I say this only because I care... There are many brands of decaf on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

rights need to be inclusive not exclusive.
Mm-hm.

But seriously, "and I say this only because I care... There are many brands of decaf on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

You're a real genius Mur..

Rights come from within the constitution, yet the rights of Roe are found no where within the constitution.

Rights don't come from within the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution itself is quite clear that there are individual rights not expressly enumerated within it.


Prior to the ruling, this above framework did not exist on any state or federal law book, whatsoever. Its introduction into law was only due to its construction in Roe v. Wade. Thus, the ruling did create a new legal framework for states to follow that was not a part of any state or federal law prior to the decision. Thus, a new legal framework was established in Roe v. Wade.

Not really new. Just expressly stated.

SCOTUS found that the law in question was unconstitutional. They then said, "Now, here's what you could do that would be constitutional."

There's nothing new about that. In fact, it saves a great deal of time. Otherwise, states would have had to figure out what was and was not constitutional by trial and error, with lots and lots of court cases. As it is, we've really only had a few major cases on this topic since then.

You're a real genius Mur..

Well, I have to amuse myself somehow in this thread -- it's kind of like passing notes during class. ;)

Judicial review, "living" constitution, and liberalism are NOT new philosophies in the US. We've been doing it that way for as long as the country has existed. And no, the justices in Roe did not create a law. They merely decided on a appropriate application of a law. And that IS well within their proper function.

The Warren court in many ways changed the philosophy of the court, but that's irrelevant. I suppose if you view abortion as any other medical procedure than yes, it would fall in line with protection for privacy of medical procedures. However, if you view abortion as unique and the taking of life, rather than the being basically the same thing as getting tonsils removed then it doesn't. The protection to take life is found no where in the constitution, so it could be argued Roe, Casey, et al. stand on very shaky legal ground.

Allow me to place this thread in context for anyone who has not followed its evolution.

I was debating a poster in another thread. He made a point that SCOTUS cannot hand down a ruling that would require new legislation for the decision to be implemented, because that would be "legislating from the bench." I then cited Roe v. Wade, a case whose very language was deisgned to with state legislatures acting in response to the ruling in mind, to object to this point. I understand that state governments were not required to take any action by the ruling, but the fact remains that the decision was designed with new legislation in mind, so the concept of SCOTUS making a decision that would entail new legislation is not without precedent. After all, it was inevitable that state legislatures would act following Roe, lest they find themselves in a situation where abortion was available on demand for all nine months of the pregnancy under the law.

Basically, the only reason I've made any point about Roe was to point out its relation to the legislative branch, in the context of the other discussion I was having. But, of course, when one says anything about the decision that isn't a glowing endorsement, one is lambasted (or praised, from a US conservative point of view).

The sheer intensity that people defend Roe with, the way that they overreact to even the slightest comment about its uniqueness among other rulings as attacking its integrity, is really quite fascinating. It says a lot about its place in modern politics. I can't think of any subsequent or prior ruling since Brown v. Board of Education that inspires such defensiveness or such malice from people.

Allow me to place this thread in context for anyone who has not followed its evolution.

I was debating a poster in another thread. He made a point that SCOTUS cannot hand down a ruling that would require new legislation for the decision to be implemented, because that would be "legislating from the bench." I then cited Roe v. Wade, a case whose very language was deisgned to with state legislatures acting in response to the ruling in mind, to object to this point.

Roe vs. Wade didn't require that new legislation be implemented, as has already been pointed out. It merely pointed out how one could regulate abortion without violating the Constitution. There's a pretty big difference.

Roe vs. Wade didn't require that new legislation be implemented, as has already been pointed out. It merely pointed out how one could regulate abortion without violating the Constitution. There's a pretty big difference.
I'd really appreciate it if people would start reading what I've written the first time.
I understand that state governments were not required to take any action by the ruling, but the fact remains that the decision was designed with new legislation in mind, so the concept of SCOTUS making a decision that would entail new legislation is not without precedent. After all, it was inevitable that state legislatures would act following Roe, lest they find themselves in a situation where abortion was available on demand for all nine months of the pregnancy under the law.

I was debating a poster in another thread. He made a point that SCOTUS cannot hand down a ruling that would require new legislation for the decision to be implemented, because that would be "legislating from the bench." I then cited Roe v. Wade, a case whose very language was deisgned to with state legislatures acting in response to the ruling in mind, to object to this point. I understand that state governments were not required to take any action by the ruling, but the fact remains that the decision was designed with new legislation in mind, so the concept of SCOTUS making a decision that would entail new legislation is not without precedent.

The decision included instructions on how to make any new legislation constitutional. As you say, no legislation was required.

As such, that makes it quite different from SCOTUS handing down a decision that would require legislation.

The sheer intensity that people defend Roe with, the way that they overreact to even the slightest comment about its uniqueness among other rulings as attacking its integrity, is really quite fascinating.

How is it unique? It wasn't the first or last time that a SCOTUS decision included guidelines by which legislation could be made constitutional. It wasn't the first or last time that SCOTUS ruled on a privacy issue. It definitely wasn't the first or last time that SCOTUS struck down a law as unconstitutional.

The decision included instructions on how to make any new legislation constitutional. As you say, no legislation was required.

As such, that makes it quite different from SCOTUS handing down a decision that would require legislation.
Of course that is true (which I noted in my post). However, Roe was different in that every state was forced to pass new laws as a result of the decision if it did not want it to go legally unpunished for 9 month-old, perfectly healthy babies to be aborted. Thus, Roe may not have literally required states to act, but the result of the ruling made it an imperative. In my view, the difference between literally requiring something in a ruling and making a decision that a state must respond to if it wants to maintain some semblance of legal sanity in its boundaries (I mean, legally allowing 9-month old babies to be aborted?!) is very, very small.

How is it unique? It wasn't the first or last time that a SCOTUS decision included guidelines by which legislation could be made constitutional. It wasn't the first or last time that SCOTUS ruled on a privacy issue. It definitely wasn't the first or last time that SCOTUS struck down a law as unconstitutional.

Exactly.

But, to address your point, even many pro-choice activists, amongst numerous legal scholars, will point out that the framework established in the ruling had very little, if any, legal or consitutional precedence. That's what makes it unique, among other facts, such as that an entire movement was launched upon its issuing. Some might even say that Reagan would never have been elected if it had not occurred.

Of course that is true (which I noted in my post). However, Roe was different in that every state was forced to pass new laws as a result of the decision if it did not want it to go legally unpunished for 9 month-old, perfectly healthy babies to be aborted.

Yeah, thought this might be the case. No point in continuing this debate.

I'm not sure Roe created a new legal framework by itself. However it is part of the more liberal trend of the court and the idea of the "living" consitution. With this new(imo dangerous) philosphy justices have moved away from deciding what the law is, into creating law. Rights come from within the constitution, yet the rights of Roe are found no where within the constitution. Unfortunately due to stare decisis and the common law system, this flawed decision is unlike to be overturned soon. That is unless the bench can be made up of more justices who interpret based on what they constitution says, and not what they want it to say.


Roe vs Wade was actually a continuation of a precedent set by Griswold vs Connecticut. That is the real case that started the "living" constitution philosophy (spirit of the law over original intent).

Of course that is true (which I noted in my post). However, Roe was different in that every state was forced to pass new laws as a result of the decision if it did not want it to go legally unpunished for 9 month-old, perfectly healthy babies to be aborted. Thus, Roe may not have literally required states to act, but the result of the ruling made it an imperative. In my view, the difference between literally requiring something in a ruling and making a decision that a state must respond to if it wants to maintain some semblance of legal sanity in its boundaries (I mean, legally allowing 9-month old babies to be aborted?!) is very, very small.


In practical terms, yes. Legally, the difference is huge.
If you write a gun control law, and include in the law that black people cannot own guns, and I strike it down as unconstitutional, and suggest that you could, if you want, make a law that allows black people to own guns, I have not created any law. I have merely informed you how the law you proposed could be made constitutional. You could, if you so chose, refuse to replace the gun control law and have no gun control of any kind, and regardless of the "sanity" of that response, it would be your choice.

Another supreme court case where similar guidelines were made: the Miranda case.

Of course that is true (which I noted in my post). However, Roe was different in that every state was forced to pass new laws as a result of the decision if it did not want it to go legally unpunished for 9 month-old, perfectly healthy babies to be aborted.

So? Plenty of decisions result in states having to make new laws if they don't want certain things to happen.

Take, for instance, the recent Kelo decision. SCOTUS made it clear that, in order to prevent the use of eminent domain in a certain manner, the legislatures would have to make laws to prevent it. Many did.

But, to address your point, even many pro-choice activists, amongst numerous legal scholars, will point out that the framework established in the ruling had very little, if any, legal or consitutional precedence. That's what makes it unique, among other facts, such as that an entire movement was launched upon its issuing. Some might even say that Reagan would never have been elected if it had not occurred.

The framework itself came from medical data, rather than anything particular in the law.

But the act of giving such guidelines was nothing new. Thus, nothing new was done legally.

Yeah, thought this might be the case. No point in continuing this debate.

Oh for shit's sake, you're actually going to tell me that a 9-month old is not a baby? 9 months, when it could be born at any time? Give me a fucking break. Once again, another example of how there are rules about what you can say about this subject that people will viciously defend until their last breath.

Meanwhile, I'm pro-choice, so you utterly fail in your really quite vapid suspicion, just because I said a word you're not allowed to say when discussing Roe v. Wade.

The framework itself came from medical data, rather than anything particular in the law.

But the act of giving such guidelines was nothing new. Thus, nothing new was done legally.

The Supreme Court is supposed to make rulings based on the Constitution, precedent, common law, and existing statutes, not medical data that it deems to appropriate for legislation. That's what makes Roe v. Wade unique -- the trimester framework that it established had no basis in any part of the law. Other legal frameworks, such as the Lemon test, were based on actual constitutional provisions.

The Warren court in many ways changed the philosophy of the court, but that's irrelevant. I suppose if you view abortion as any other medical procedure than yes, it would fall in line with protection for privacy of medical procedures. However, if you view abortion as unique and the taking of life, rather than the being basically the same thing as getting tonsils removed then it doesn't. The protection to take life is found no where in the constitution, so it could be argued Roe, Casey, et al. stand on very shaky legal ground.
Medical procedure and therefore morally neutral or killing and therefore morally charged -- therein lies much of the debate on abortion. However, I personally believe there is more precedence and more logical weight to the morally neutral medical procedure side, because there are lots of medical procedures that involve killing things -- even things such as people -- yet they are not as controversial as abortion. What makes people so hot about abortion -- and what constitutes the rest of the abortion debate -- has nothing at all to do with the procedure itself, but everything to do with the behavior or lifestyles of the women getting the procedure, and that leads me to suspect that the "killing" nature of abortion is not really what motivates a large segment of the anti-choice factions.

As for what can or can't be argued about the legal ground of Roe, lawyers can make any argument about anything. Hell, anyone can -- just look at NSG. What "can be argued" is not really persuasive to me. What counts is the quality of the arguments, and on that score, I find the anti-choice factions lacking.

Oh for shit's sake, you're actually going to tell me that a 9-month old is not a baby? 9 months, when it could be born at any time? Give me a fucking break. Once again, another example of how there are rules about what you can say about this subject that people will viciously defend until their last breath.

Because a baby is something that is born. A fetus is something yet to be born. A 9 month old fetus and a newborn baby may be very similar, but they're not the same. One is born, the other is not.

Yes, there are rules, they're called the english language, and it dictates that when you're talking about something not yet born, you use the term "fetus" and you reserve the word "baby" for something that is born. Otherwise you're butchering the english language, which is often done for emotive, emotional, and severe hyperboli of arguments.

The fact is that the real anger over this protracted issue should be directed at the cowardly elected officials of Congress who conveniently sidestep this issue through Roe vs. Wade. It took unelected officials to essentially make law on this subject and that's why the right to choose has been eroded steadily over time, because there are large legal issues with the decision, with issues of state rights to choose the parameters rather than for a court to decide on timeframes such as 3 months, which it simply does not have a right to do.

Protection of a woman's right to choose and the extent of that choice should be enshrined in legislation that is voted and passed by elected officials.

Because a baby is something that is born. A fetus is something yet to be born. A 9 month old fetus and a newborn baby may be very similar, but they're not the same. One is born, the other is not.

Yes, there are rules, they're called the english language, and it dictates that when you're talking about something not yet born, you use the term "fetus" and you reserve the word "baby" for something that is born. Otherwise you're butchering the english language, which is often done for emotive, emotional, and severe hyperboli of arguments.
Wow. Just wow. The semantic Nazis are out in full force tonight. The extent people will go to defend euphemisms is just astounding.

A recently-born baby, and a 9-month year old ba...:sniper:....I mean fetus!! I mean fetus!! are virtually identical. You really want to argue that with me? I see no problem using phrases interchangeably when, in this case, they both refer to the same thing.

Wow. Just wow. The semantic Nazis are out in full force tonight. The extent people will go to defend euphemisms is just astounding.

A recently-born baby, and a 9-month year old ba...:sniper:....I mean fetus!! I mean fetus!! are virtually identical. You really want to argue that with me? I see no problem using phrases interchangeably when, in this case, they both refer to the same thing.

Dude, semantics are important, no one can guess what you mean and, I'm afraid, people will pick up on these things.

It's why I quite like debating online, it forces you to be exact in what you say because it's sitting there on record. This helps focus the discussion to be honest.

I don't know if you're a old poster recently returned or new to the boards but I suspect you're a welcome addition, don't get too frustrated by side issues.

Wow. Just wow. The semantic Nazis are out in full force tonight. The extent people will go to defend euphemisms is just astounding.

A recently-born baby, and a 9-month year old ba...:sniper:....I mean fetus!! I mean fetus!! are virtually identical. You really want to argue that with me? I see no problem using phrases interchangeably when, in this case, they both refer to the same thing.
I can understand why you see us that way. After all, every single argument on every topic that you've posted in three threads over the last three days has been invalid because you have misused terms and misread and misapplied laws. You really give us nothing to do but correct your mistakes. Referring just to this thread:

- There is no "new legal framework" in Roe because what you describe in Roe is not a legal framework, new or old.

- Also, a fetus can be aborted, but a baby cannot because abortion aborts a pregnancy, and if there's a "baby" then the birth already happened and the pregnancy is already over -- so it can't be aborted anymore.

- Also, when you refer to "healthy 9-month-old babies," that term means babies who were born 9 months ago, NOT conceived 9 months ago. Before they are born, they are not babies. They are embryos and then fetuses, and their age is measured separately, from conception to birth. Then at birth, a baby comes into existence, and a new age clock is started, with moment zero being the moment of birth. Now, I challenge you to either prove that Roe created a legal precedent for killing babies 9 months after they are born, or else admit that you either used the wrong word accidentally or else deliberately lied for a cheap shock effect when you referred to "healthy 9-month-old babies" being aborted.

- Also, when you refer to "healthy 9-month-old babies," that term means babies who were born 9 months ago, NOT conceived 9 months ago. Before they are born, they are not babies. They are embryos and then fetuses, and their age is measured separately, from conception to birth. Then at birth, a baby comes into existence, and a new age clock is started, with moment zero being the moment of birth. Now, I challenge you to either prove that Roe created a legal precedent for killing babies 9 months after they are born, or else admit that you either used the wrong word accidentally or else deliberately lied for a cheap shock effect when you referred to "healthy 9-month-old babies" being aborted.

Forget it Mur, it's Chinatown...

Forget it Mur, it's Chinatown...
http://www.fathom.com/course/21701762/21701762_chinatown2_s3.jpg
Hi, can either Reason or Sense come to the phone, please?"

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701762/21701762_chinatown2_s3.jpg
Hi, can either Reason or Sense come to the phone, please?"

I'm so glad someone got that joke....

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701762/21701762_chinatown2_s3.jpg
Hi, can either Reason or Sense come to the phone, please?"

Hee. Can I move to Boston and polygamously marry you both, even though that might (unlike Roe v. Wade) require an entirely new legal framework? ;)

I'm so glad someone got that joke....

Like I said before, we have to amuse ourselves somehow in this thread. Talking to Vamosa isn't doing it, so a "guess the movie" game is in order, yes? ;)

Hee. Can I move to Boston and polygamously marry you both, even though that might (unlike Roe v. Wade) require an entirely new legal framework? ;)

that would be hot if it weren't for the fact that both of you are straight.

Hee. Can I move to Boston and polygamously marry you both, even though that might (unlike Roe v. Wade) require an entirely new legal framework? ;)
Well, I might except for the following:

that would be hot if it weren't for the fact that both of you are straight.
Honey, that "special" wisecrack has wiped out any chance of you getting anything hot from me until you figure out some way to make me happy with you again. :p

that would be hot if it weren't for the fact that both of you are straight.

Yeah, because two attractive women who get your old movie references NOT making out with each other, but rather just (presumably, in this hypothetical situation) making out with you? SO not sexy, right?

:p

Honey, that "special" wisecrack has wiped out any chance of you getting anything hot from me until you figure out some way to make me happy with you again. :p

aw, dear, after all, I'm quite sure the two of you are very capable of leaving me thoroughly exhausted in short order, and I was merely commenting that it would be quite unfair of me to enter into any kind of arrangement with the two of you, given that neither of you are inclined to entertain each other while I recover :p

Yeah, because two attractive women who get your old movie references NOT making out with each other, but rather just (presumably, in this hypothetical situation) making out with you? SO not sexy, right?

:p
Clearly, he's burned out his imagination on Vamosa. ;)

Yeah, because two attractive women who get your old movie references NOT making out with each other, but rather just (presumably, in this hypothetical situation) making out with you? SO not sexy, right?

:p

see below :p

Roe vs Wade was actually a continuation of a precedent set by Griswold vs Connecticut. That is the real case that started the "living" constitution philosophy (spirit of the law over original intent).

I never claim it started it, merely that it was part of it.

Medical procedure and therefore morally neutral or killing and therefore morally charged -- therein lies much of the debate on abortion. However, I personally believe there is more precedence and more logical weight to the morally neutral medical procedure side, because there are lots of medical procedures that involve killing things -- even things such as people -- yet they are not as controversial as abortion. What makes people so hot about abortion -- and what constitutes the rest of the abortion debate -- has nothing at all to do with the procedure itself, but everything to do with the behavior or lifestyles of the women getting the procedure, and that leads me to suspect that the "killing" nature of abortion is not really what motivates a large segment of the anti-choice factions.

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment.

As for what can or can't be argued about the legal ground of Roe, lawyers can make any argument about anything. Hell, anyone can -- just look at NSG. What "can be argued" is not really persuasive to me. What counts is the quality of the arguments, and on that score, I find the anti-choice factions lacking.

It's a matter of prospective. If I view a fetus as an innocent baby, arguments for killing of said baby based on medical privacy would ring hollow and dangerous to me. I could then argue murdering babies is not allowed by the constitution, Roe therefore sets an flawed precedent removing stare decisis and allowing for the ruling to be overturned. This of course is unlike to happen unless the court finds itself with one or two more members similar to Thomas and Scalia.

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment.


It's a matter of prospective. If I view a fetus as an innocent baby, arguments for killing of said baby based on medical privacy would ring hollow and dangerous to me. I could then argue murdering babies is not allowed by the constitution, Roe therefore sets an flawed precedent removing stare decisis and allowing for the ruling to be overturned. This of course is unlike to happen unless the court finds itself with one or two more members similar to Thomas and Scalia.

It definitely becomes dicier in that situation, but there remains the fact that the woman's life is in danger. Complications are possible in nearly every pregnancy, and requiring a person to risk their life for another's is not necessarily something we want the law to casually do.

Tehehe. That was so much fun to read. I'm so glad I started this thread. Ti thought I'd seen enough on page 2, but it just kept getting better. Great arguments all.

I'm inclined to agree with your assessment.


It's a matter of prospective. If I view a fetus as an innocent baby, arguments for killing of said baby based on medical privacy would ring hollow and dangerous to me. I could then argue murdering babies is not allowed by the constitution, Roe therefore sets an flawed precedent removing stare decisis and allowing for the ruling to be overturned. This of course is unlike to happen unless the court finds itself with one or two more members similar to Thomas and Scalia.
Except for:

A) Your perspective (sp) is of no concern to me in judging right from wrong. What I mean is that it is possible to go through life being wrong, and therefore, the perspective of people who believe an argument does not validate that argument to anyone who doesn't believe it. Further -- and this was the point of my remark -- any argument can be made, and if the arguers are sufficiently persuasive, any argument can be carried. That doesn't make it the morally superior position. Hell, it doesn't even guarantee that it is factually correct. For examples of this, just look to history for a whole catalogue of notions that were both incorrect and morally repugnant but were accepted by large groups of people for a while.

B) In the case of abortion, the matter is not as simple as your perspective would make it seem, because the proposed rights of a fetus are not the only rights in play. There are also the rights of the woman. As often happens in matters of life and death, the two sets of rights clash. No matter what you do, someone will suffer because of your actions. So if you will insist on inserting the government and your perspective into other people's lives, it will be your responsibility to decide which group you want to treat unfairly -- because universal fairness is just not possible in such a situation. Alternatively, you could opt to stay out of the whole issue, declare it a private medical procedure of no concern to the state, and let the individuals most personally involved in such problems work them out in ways that our culture and our medical science deem best -- or least bad, at any rate. However, that approach would not allow you to make me conform to your perspective, so I guess you would be the one left unhappy in that case. Oh, well, eh? And so the fight continues.

Loving and other such cases simply invalidated or upheld a specific law. Roe v. Wade actually created a whole new set of guidelines -- a new legal framework. That's what I meant when I originally made the statement that sparked this read. It's really not that revolutionary of a concept, and I certainly do not see why it's worthy of such lengthy discussion.
Perhaps the following (http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7986)would augment your case:

What Roe v. Wade brought into the legal arena was a whole new dimension of law, never considered before as a constitutional matter — the opening of a legal question with no precedents and no constitutional principles directly relating to it. In constitutional terms, there were no categories to judge the question of the unborn, no legal categories that included them. It was a totally new fact, in the Brandeis sense — a new legal territory with no guideposts.

Because a baby is something that is born. A fetus is something yet to be born. A 9 month old fetus and a newborn baby may be very similar, but they're not the same. One is born, the other is not.

Yes, there are rules, they're called the english language, and it dictates that when you're talking about something not yet born, you use the term "fetus" and you reserve the word "baby" for something that is born. Otherwise you're butchering the english language, which is often done for emotive, emotional, and severe hyperboli of arguments.


ba·by (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/baby.html) [ báybee ]


noun (plural ba·bies)

Definition:

1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk


2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

Dictionary (http://www.answers.com/topic/manchester-mark-i): baby

A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.

http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=baby#Overview%20of%20noun%20baby

4. baby -- (an unborn child; a human fetus; ``I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside'' )

ba·by (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/baby.html) [ báybee ]


noun (plural ba·bies)

Definition:

1. very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk


2. unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

Dictionary (http://www.answers.com/topic/manchester-mark-i): baby

A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.

http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=baby#Overview%20of%20noun%20baby

4. baby -- (an unborn child; a human fetus; ``I felt healthy and very feminine carrying the baby"; "it was great to feel my baby moving about inside'' )
I do not accept on this basis that "baby" is the proper term for an unborn child. It is not the medical term, and it is not the legal term. That it can be used that way in general talk does not change that. However, even if we accept that a fetus can be referred to as a baby, then how does that make a baby 9 months old at the moment of its birth? If birth does not fundamentally change something about the nature of the being, then why do we reset the clock, as it were, when it is born?

Also, it is irrelevant, because even if we were to stop resetting the clock and instead include the gestational period in a person's age, that would not negate the issue of a woman's right to control her own medical decisions.

I bring this up just to try to get in ahead of the "See? See? It's a baby, you murderers!!" round of the argument by stating right up front that I, for one, don't care if it's a baby or not. I don't think it is, technically, but it really doesn't matter one way or the other, to me.

EDIT: Also, I think we should decide whether we want to hijack this into a debate about abortion itself, or stick with the topic of whether Roe created a new legal framework or not. Your post to Vamosa above does not address that, in my opinion. The particular new set of standards introduced in the ruling does NOT amount to a whole new legal framework.

- There is no "new legal framework" in Roe because what you describe in Roe is not a legal framework, new or old.
Yes, it was. The trimester guidelines set forth had no legal precedent in any of the areas that SCOTUS is supposed to take into consideration -- precedent, common law, existing statutes, and the Constitution. So it was entirely new upon it issuing. To deny that is to deny reality, but that's a common practice with people who defend Roe to no end. George Orwell's concept of "doublethink" (1984) was never so amazingly on display.

- Also, a fetus can be aborted, but a baby cannot because abortion aborts a pregnancy, and if there's a "baby" then the birth already happened and the pregnancy is already over -- so it can't be aborted anymore.

- Also, when you refer to "healthy 9-month-old babies," that term means babies who were born 9 months ago, NOT conceived 9 months ago. Before they are born, they are not babies. They are embryos and then fetuses, and their age is measured separately, from conception to birth. Then at birth, a baby comes into existence, and a new age clock is started, with moment zero being the moment of birth. Now, I challenge you to either prove that Roe created a legal precedent for killing babies 9 months after they are born, or else admit that you either used the wrong word accidentally or else deliberately lied for a cheap shock effect when you referred to "healthy 9-month-old babies" being aborted.
It's amazing how small technicalities that mean absolutely nothing in the concept of a debate can be twisted and used to sidestep the debate itself. The only reason I defended my use of "baby" was because a cheap, unwarranted implication that I am pro-life, and have an agenda against Roe v. Wade, was raised because of my use of the word. I never made any claims that Roe created legal precedent for killing born children -- that's something raised entirely by you. I didn't use any word "accidentally" or for "cheap shock effect." The medical difference between a 9-month year in the womb and out of the womb are meaningless, so as far as I'm concerned, it's a baby. I don't really care what your stupid rules of technicalities used to protect your precious "buzz words" are.

I can almost see the unspoken rule book now:


1. One cannot question that any part of Roe v. Wade was completely based in existing law, despite the fact that the trimester formula set forth in it had no basis in judicial precedent, the Constitution, existing statutes, or common law -- or in other words: LAW.

2. One can never say the word "baby," even when the differences drawn between "fetus" and "baby" are ridiculously technical and mean virtually nothing: "One is in the womb and the other is outside of it!" We aren't discussing a developing fetus in the 3rd month of pregnancy -- we are discussing something with a fully developed body and brain that is fully capable of living outside of the womb, in other words: a baby. Doublethink is quite incredible to watch.

If I had called a human entity in the 3rd month of a life a baby, a case could be made that I'm pro-life. However, when I call a 9-month old a "baby" and someone raises that as an issue, that's either a.) the definition of a strawman or b.) a crazed, fanatic pro-choicer who interprets the book of rules about discussing Roe v. Wade (outlined above) like he or she refuses to interpret legal parameters (i.e. common law, precedent, statutes on the books, and the Constitution) - literally.

In fact, this whole thread is now about semantics, because none of you want to address the real issue at hand.

People, you can argue about semantics all you want. You can stonewall by hysterically screaming about hyper-technicalities about the word "baby" or the word "framework," but no one has yet to dispute the central argument I made: that the trimester precedent created by Roe had no basis in existing law, and thus was new.

I challenge everyone to stop making ridiculous strawmen ("They weren't legal rules, they were medical ones!" So they didn't take the force of law?), and actually address that argument. Because no one has yet to do so.

In fact, this whole thread is now about semantics, because none of you want to address the real issue at hand.

People, you can argue about semantics all you want. You can stonewall by hysterically screaming about hyper-technicalities about the word "baby" or the word "framework," but no one has yet to dispute the central argument I made: that the trimester precedent created by Roe had no basis in existing law, and thus was new.

I challenge everyone to stop making ridiculous strawmen ("They were legal rules, they were medical ones!" So they didn't take the force of law?), and actually address that argument. Because no one has yet to do so.
1) Semantics are an issue in this argument because YOU screwed up YOUR semantics. Your arguments are non-starters -- never got out of the gate -- because you used the wrong terminology, making your arguments meaningless because of faulty construction. You had your errors explained to you over and over, but rather than correct your terms and build better arguments, you just blamed those who tried to help you. We are NOT ignoring your arguments in favor of semantics. We are pointing out the most glaring flaw in your arguments, which is your semantics.

2) Your core argument is that Roe created a new legal framework. That argument HAS been directly addressed, many times over. The counter argument is this: A legal framework is the system by which laws are formulated. The new set of standards for laws affecting abortion that was introduced by the Roe ruling DID NOT change anything in the system the US uses to formulate laws. Ergo, it is not a new legal framework. Period.

Whether the set of standards is proper under the Constitution -- i.e. within the existing legal framework -- is an entirely different question. You also seem to be trying to argue that it is improper in some way, but that has also been directly addressed several times by people who have explained how the court did not exceed its proper function or authority in including those standards in its ruling.

3) So, on the issues of semantics, of legal frameworks, AND of the propriety of the court's action, your argument HAS been addressed directly. If you just don't like the way it has been addressed, that does not mean it was not addressed.

Yes, it was. The trimester guidelines set forth had no legal precedent in any of the areas that SCOTUS is supposed to take into consideration -- precedent, common law, existing statutes, and the Constitution. So it was entirely new upon it issuing. To deny that is to deny reality, but that's a common practice with people who defend Roe to no end. George Orwell's concept of "doublethink" (1984) was never so amazingly on display.
Indeed, you've done an amazing and admirable job of demonstrating how doublethink works by claiming that arguments have not been addressed even though they have; claiming that terms you had used to construct your core argument suddenly become "small technicalities" when it is shown that they are incorrect; claiming that people have accused you of espousing a "pro-life" agenda, when in this thread YOU are the only one who has said that; accusing others of twisting your words in the very same post in which you twist them rather outrageously to try to claim that your words "perfectly healthy 9-month-old babies getting aborted" did not mean you were talking about killing born children -- even though that is the precise meaning of the words you used (obviously erroneously); claiming that medical distinctions are meaningless because you prefer your own version of reality to that of medical science; and resorting to hyperbolic dismissals of your opponents rather than actually trying to improve your own arguments to counter them.

In fact, this whole thread is now about semantics, because none of you want to address the real issue at hand.

No, this whole thread is about me flirting with Mur. If we tangentally pick apart your nonsense based on semantic error, it's because the rest of your big steaming pile you call an argument has nothing really worth arguing. You've basically taken one supreme court case and tried to, poorly, seperate it from other supreme court cases, by taking what SCOTUS does every day (alibiet, in Roe it tooked a lot different, but it was still the same thing) and trying to pretend it was osmething unusual.

but no one has yet to dispute the central argument I made: that the trimester precedent created by Roe had no basis in existing law, and thus was new.

YOu want me to dispute it? Fine. Both the rights of mother and the rights of fetus had precident in law. In Roe those came into conflict. THe trimester period was the resolution of that conflict. It was not "new" law, it was the resolution of different, conflicting legal rights.

Muravyets, you seem to have misinterpreted what I meant by "framework", or you're deliberately changing the meaning of the word to fit your arguments. I have repeatedly, right from the beginning, referred to the trimester formula as a "framework." I called it new, because it had no precedent in law, as I have stated, right from the start. I never stated that there was a change in the way that the Court makes rulings, or anything of the sort. I dare you to find one post, just one post, where I said this was the case. I simply stated that they created a new "framework," or set of "guidelines," or set of "rules" that had never existed before.

Muravyets, you seem to have misinterpreted what I meant by "framework", or you're deliberately changing the meaning of the word to fit your arguments.

If you're using the term "framework" in a way other than the way Muravyets defines it, then you are, once again, in error. The fact is, words have meanings, and if you disagree with Mur's definition, then you're using it wrong.

That's it. End of discussion. End of argument. NO new legal framework was created. You can argue it was, because, in your head, "framework" means something entirely different than what it does, but that doesn't make your argument "good". That doesn't make us wrong. That just makes you someone incapable of properly using the English language, and utilizing legal terminology in the way that is proper. That's not a "semantic" argument, that's not nitpicking. Your entire fundamental argument is predicated on you not knowing what a term means.

Now, with that out of the way, so, Mur, how you doin?

YOu want me to dispute it? Fine. Both the rights of mother and the rights of fetus had precident in law.
That's absolute, complete bullshit. If you want to argue that point with me, then feel free to show me one case where a fetus was shown to have legal rights. In fact, Roe v. Wade established that the fetus has no legal rights under the 14th amendment. The only reason that the state was permitted to make laws regulating abortion was due to its interest in the developing life, not because the fetus has legal rights.
In Roe those came into conflict. THe trimester period was the resolution of that conflict. It was not "new" law, it was the resolution of different, conflicting legal rights.
It wasn't "new?" Then show me one place in the Constitution, judicial precedent, existing statutes (prior to Roe v. Wade), or common law that addressed abortion by trimester.

Oh, you can't? That's what I thought.

If you're using the term "framework" in a way other than the way Muravyets defines it, then you are, once again, in error. The fact is, words have meanings, and if you disagree with Mur's definition, then you're using it wrong.

That's it. End of discussion. End of argument. NO new legal framework was created. You can argue it was, because, in your head, "framework" means something entirely different than what it does, but that doesn't make your argument "good". That doesn't make us wrong. That just makes you someone incapable of properly using the English language, and utilizing legal terminology in the way that is proper. That's not a "semantic" argument, that's not nitpicking. Your entire fundamental argument is predicated on you not knowing what a term means.

Now, with that out of the way, so, Mur, how you doin?

Oh, OK. No Muravyets is the final arbitrater on what words mean. That's convenient.

Let's look at the definition of the word, if you're going to be so condescending.

1. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality.

2.A fundamental structure, as for a written work.
Hmmm...The trimester formula is a set of concepts that constitute how legislatures were to legally address abortion.

Hmm...they were a fundamental structure for future written legislation.

Regardless of how you want to twist things, my use of the word "framework" was a completely fitting way to describe the trimester formula. The fact that you interpreted it another way is entirely your fault. Want to disagree with me? The definition is staring you in the face.

That's absolute, complete bullshit. If you want to argue that point with me, then feel free to show me one case where a fetus was shown to have legal rights.

It had legal rights under the law, or did you forget yourself claiming how all states had laws outlawing abortion?

In fact, Roe v. Wade established that the fetus has no legal rights under the 14th amendment.


Actually, that's entirely incorrect. The court left unanswered the question of whether a fetus qualified as a person, and specifically noted that the question remained unanswered.

The only reason that the state was permitted to make laws regulating abortion was due to its interest in the developing life, not because the fetus has legal rights.

For SCOTUS, perhaps, but other legal entities, for example the Texas State legislature, believed that the fetus had rights. the US Supreme Court may be the final word in the law, but it's not the only one.

It wasn't "new?" Then show me one place in the Constitution, judicial precedent, existing statutes (prior to Roe v. Wade), or common law that addressed abortion by trimester..

Just as soon as you figure out how that related to a framework. I won't argue that Roe created, largely out of wholecloth, a new way of evaluating abortion rights. I won't argue that a similar system didn't exist prior. That's all fine, and, frankly, obvious to anyone with a pulse.

However, that does not make it a legal framework

Muravyets, you seem to have misinterpreted what I meant by "framework", or you're deliberately changing the meaning of the word to fit your arguments. I have repeatedly, right from the beginning, referred to the trimester formula as a "framework." I called it new, because it had no precedent in law, as I have stated, right from the start. I never stated that there was a change in the way that the Court makes rulings, or anything of the sort. I dare you to find one post, just one post, where I said this was the case. I simply stated that they created a new "framework," or set of "guidelines," or set of "rules" that had never existed before.
Yes, you have repeatedly referred to it as a "framework." In fact, you have repeated referred to it as a "legal framework." And you've been wrong every time you said it.

You have also failed to show any reason why we should think that anything the court did in Roe was not entirely proper and within its authority.

So not only are you giving us nothign but erroneous crap to debate, you are giving us no reason to debate it at all, since it isn't what you said it was, nor is it apparently controversial.

If you're using the term "framework" in a way other than the way Muravyets defines it, then you are, once again, in error. The fact is, words have meanings, and if you disagree with Mur's definition, then you're using it wrong.

That's it. End of discussion. End of argument. NO new legal framework was created. You can argue it was, because, in your head, "framework" means something entirely different than what it does, but that doesn't make your argument "good". That doesn't make us wrong. That just makes you someone incapable of properly using the English language, and utilizing legal terminology in the way that is proper. That's not a "semantic" argument, that's not nitpicking. Your entire fundamental argument is predicated on you not knowing what a term means.

Now, with that out of the way, so, Mur, how you doin?
I'm great, baby. How are you? ;)

I might take a break and go run some errands for a while. It's too nice a day to spend on this grind. You know, it's funny, I had an argument with my cat last night, and made more progress with him in one evening than I have with Vamosa in three days.

Oh, OK. No Muravyets is the final arbitrater on what words mean. That's convenient.
It is for you because I've got a killer vocabulary. Rely on me, and you'll never get caught in a semantical trap again.

It had legal rights under the law, or did you forget yourself claiming how all states had laws outlawing abortion?
"Rights" aren't decided by legislatures -- rights are enshrined in the Constitution and common law and protected by the courts.

Actually, that's entirely incorrect. The court left unanswered the question of whether a fetus qualified as a person, and specifically noted that the question remained unanswered.
Oops:
All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
You fail.

I'm great, baby.

Are you calling me a fetus?

How are you? ;)

Ehh, work sucks. And check yer TGs :p

The important thing to remember is that she changed her mind and became an active member of the anti-abortion movement.

It is for you because I've got a killer vocabulary. Rely on me, and you'll never get caught in a semantical trap again.
[ANNOUNCER VOICE] Muravyets, realizing that he couldn't possibly respond to the other half of the post without looking like a complete moron, instead choose to answer only the first part of the post with a humorous jibe!

[Crowd Laughter]

1. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality.

2.A fundamental structure, as for a written work.

Hmmm...The trimester formula is a set of concepts that constitute how legislatures were to legally address abortion.

Hmm...they were a fundamental structure for future written legislation.

Regardless of how you want to twist things, my use of the word "framework" was a completely fitting way to describe the trimester formula. The fact that you interpreted it another way is entirely your fault. Want to disagree with me? The definition is staring you in the face.

Are you calling me a fetus?

Ick, no! Ugh. I'll pick a new pet-name for you while I do my shopping. ;)

The important thing to remember is that she changed her mind and became an active member of the anti-abortion movement.
Why is that important? Who cares what she did? What possible relevance can that have to what the courts, the Congress, and every other citizen does?

Are you calling me a fetus?



Ehh, work sucks. And check yer TGs :p

It's 12:36. You owe me a character.

frame·work

1. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality.
2. A fundamental structure, as for a written work.
[ANNOUNCER VOICE CONTINUES] Murayvets continued to ignore the fact that her semantic supremacy had been proven wrong, and continued in her inane side conversation rather than admit it.

[ANNOUNCER] Meanwhile, Neo Art had just made a patently false statement about both "rights" and the ruling of Roe v. Wade ! How will they get out of this one?

[Crowd Laughter]

[ANNOUNCER VOICE] Muravyets, realizing that he

If Mur is a he, I have seriously wasted my time.

[Crowd Laughter]


Oh, we're laughing alright, just not at what you think.

Hmmm...The trimester formula is a set of concepts that constitute how legislatures were to legally address abortion.

Hmm...they were a fundamental structure for future written legislation.

Regardless of how you want to twist things, my use of the word "framework" was a completely fitting way to describe the trimester formula. The fact that you interpreted it another way is entirely your fault. Want to disagree with me? The definition is staring you in the face.

None of which makes it a new legal framework. A legal framework is the "fundamental structure" on which all law rests. It did not introduce a set of concepts that constitute how legislatures were to address all law. The constitution is a legal framework. The articles of confederation were a legal framework.

Roe did not change the legal framework as it did not alter the fundamental structure of law. If anything it created a new framework for abortion law, and if you want to argue that Roe created a new framework for abortion law then fine. But you're trying to argue that it created an entirely new legal framework in its entirety which is entirely untrue. It did not. The legal framework in this country is the constitution. Roe may have created a new framework for abortion law, but that's it.

Roe may have created a new framework for abortion law, but that's it.
So that would make it a framework, yes? And it applied to law, as you've admitted, so that would make it a...yes...legal (adjective for law) framework.

Game over.

[ANNOUNCER VOICE] Muravyets, realizing that he couldn't possibly respond to the other half of the post without looking like a complete moron, instead choose to answer only the first part of the post with a humorous jibe!

[Crowd Laughter]



Hmmm...The trimester formula is a set of concepts that constitute how legislatures were to legally address abortion.

Hmm...they were a fundamental structure for future written legislation.

Regardless of how you want to twist things, my use of the word "framework" was a completely fitting way to describe the trimester formula. The fact that you interpreted it another way is entirely your fault. Want to disagree with me? The definition is staring you in the face.
What, you mean this part right here, above, which you repeated for convenience? This part, which I already addressed the first several times you trotted it out in varying forms in this argument? This part that doesn't save your failed, dead, burning argument because it doesn't address your specific usage in this specific case, because it leaves off the "legal" part, which you yourself started out with?

Yeah, yeah, I know that you've spent several days shifting your goalposts around so you could try to weasel out of the trap you caught yourself in by misusing a piece of legal jargon, but fuck that -- it's not my job to cater to your unwillingness to admit your mistakes. You framed the argument the way you did, and it is by that standard that you fail.

Roe did not introduce a new legal framework. Period.

What, you mean this part right here, above, which you repeated for convenience? This part, which I already addressed the first several times you trotted it out in varying forms in this argument? This part that doesn't save your failed, dead, burning argument because it doesn't address your specific usage in this specific case, because it leaves off the "legal" part, which you yourself started out with?

Yeah, yeah, I know that you've spent several days shifting your goalposts around so you could try to weasel out of the trap you caught yourself in by misusing a piece of legal jargon, but fuck that -- it's not my job to cater to your unwillingness to admit your mistakes. You framed the argument the way you did, and it is by that standard that you fail.

Roe did not introduce a new legal framework. Period.

Please see above post. Thank you. :)

But, for shits and giggles, I'll post it again:

You've admitted that it was a framework. From there, it is undeniable that it is a framework that applied to law. That would make it a legal (adjective for law) framework.

Please see above post. Thank you. :)
I did. You're wrong in that one, too, but I will give you this: You type faster than me.

If Mur is a he, I have seriously wasted my time.

You haven't wasted your time, but Mur feels absolutely no need to clarify her gender to Vamosa. That would be a waste of time.

I did. You're wrong in that one, too, but I will give you this: You type faster than me.

1. We've established it was a framework.

2. Neo Art admitted, and only a mentally challenged person could credibly deny, that it was a framework that applied to the law. What's the adjective for law? Ah yes, legal.

So that would make the trimester formula a legal (point #2) framework (#1).

The end.

1. We've established it was a framework.

2. Neo Art admitted, and only a mentally challenged person could credibly deny, that it was a framework that applied to the law. What's the adjective for law? Ah yes, legal.

So that would make the trimester formula a legal (point #2) framework (#1).

The end.

Actually, its a medical framework referenced by the law in making legal decisions on abortion.

Edit: in much the same way that declaring someone medically dead following brain death can be referenced in declaring someone legally deceased.

Actually, its a medical framework referenced by the law in making legal decisions on abortion.

Edit: in much the same way that declaring someone medically dead following brain death can be referenced in declaring someone legally deceased.

Mr. Strawman...Bring me a dream...

It's enshrined in law, right? Legislatures had to follow it, right? It was based in medicine; it was applied in law. Therefore, it was a legal framework.

These arguments get more ridiculous and reach new lows with every new post...

The Supreme Court is supposed to make rulings based on the Constitution, precedent, common law, and existing statutes, not medical data that it deems to appropriate for legislation.

Medical data can be important.

The Constitution contains phrases like "due process", that are not strictly defined. It is the job of the courts to interpret that phrase. Something like medical data can be very relevant in determining whether or not the government has a compelling enough reason to interfere.

It is not at all unusual for the court to go to the experts in a given area when laying out guidelines for due process.

You haven't wasted your time

So you're saying...I still got a shot right? ;)

And since you haven't left yet, TGs!

And Deus, I'm working on it! heh

Mr. Strawman...Bring me a dream...

It's enshrined in law, right? Legislatures had to follow it, right? It was based in medicine; it was applied in law. Therefore, it was a legal framework.

These arguments get more ridiculous and reach new lows with every new post...

In order for it to have been a strawman, I would have to have mischaracterized your argument.

Since your argument, as stated here:
1. We've established it was a framework.

2. Neo Art admitted, and only a mentally challenged person could credibly deny, that it was a framework that applied to the law. What's the adjective for law? Ah yes, legal.

So that would make the trimester formula a legal (point #2) framework (#1).

Very clearly suggests that the trimester formula is a legal framework, pointing out that it is not a legal framework directly addresses the argument.

Not only do you fail at understanding the definition of legal framework and how it applies, you apparently suck at understanding what a strawman is.

Epic. Fail.

So you're saying...I still got a shot right? ;)

And since you haven't left yet, TGs!

And Deus, I'm working on it! heh

Good. Was just about to remind you. More insistently.

In order for it to have been a strawman, I would have to have mischaracterized your argument.

Since your argument, as stated here:


Very clearly suggests that the trimester formula is a legal framework, pointing out that it is not a legal framework directly addresses the argument.

Not only do you fail at understanding the definition of legal framework and how it applies, you apparently suck at understanding what a strawman is.

Epic. Fail.

The trimester formula was based on medicine. The fact that it is based in medicine has nothing to do with its application, which was in law. To say that it was purely a medical framework implies that it had nothing to do with the law, which is just plain WRONG.

You suck at making a counter-argument.

1. We've established it was a framework.

2. Neo Art admitted, and only a mentally challenged person could credibly deny, that it was a framework that applied to the law. What's the adjective for law? Ah yes, legal.

So that would make the trimester formula a legal (point #2) framework (#1).

The end.
My house has a framework, too. Is a legal framework? No.

Your original argument was that Roe introduced a new legal framework for the Congress to adhere to. In other words, that it altered the way laws would be formulated by Congress. However, it has been amply shown that it did no such thing. All it did was provide a list of suggested standards for the Congress to use if it wanted to avoid the same kinds of Constitutional problems in future. This in no way obligated the Congress to follow those standards, so in practical terms it had no effect whatsoever, beyond whatever Congress chose to do or not do with it. Therefore, it did not introduce a new legal framework as you had originally characterized it.

Now, you try to claim that you won your original argument by lowering the standard of your language, by switching from the specialized meaning of the term "legal framework" as you started out using it to a much more vague and generalized meaning. To that, I can only say, no shit Roe contains a legal framework. It's a law, so it kind of can't do otherwise, can it? It is structured around a legal framework, but that does not make it the introduction of a new legal framework to the US system.

All this does is bring us right back to a counter-argument made long ago -- that [/u]Roe[/u] took an existing framework and applied it in a new way, utilizing new standards of measurement. In that way, it added a new functional feature to the legal framework of the US, but I dispute the claim that it altered -- or even sought to alter -- the fundamental legal framework of US legislation and jurisprudence.

The trimester formula was based on medicine. The fact that it is based in medicine has nothing to do with its application, which was in law. To say that it was purely a medical framework implies that it had nothing to do with the law, which is just plain WRONG.

You suck at making a counter-argument.

The fact that it applies to the law does not make it a legal framework. Again, the medical definition of death applies to the legal definition of death. It does not make it a legal framework. So it is in this case.
Clearly, you suck at counter-counter-arguments.

Should we point out a certain pertinent fact or should we let him humiliate himself with his misunderstanding of legal terminology some more?

Now, you try to claim that you won your original argument by lowering the standard of your language, by switching from the specialized meaning of the term "legal framework" as you started out using it to a much more vague and generalized meaning. To that, I can only say, no shit Roe contains a legal framework. It's a law, so it kind of can't do otherwise, can it? It is structured around a legal framework, but that does not make it the introduction of a new legal framework to the US system.

Which is amusing into itself because based on that...overly broad definition, any time the supreme court, or indeed, any time any court interprets anything in any way that deviates, departs, or differentiates from existing precident it creates "a new legal framework".

To argue that Roe created a new legal framework merely because it defined the law is to say that a thousand "new legal frameworks" pop up every single day in this country.

Which makes the application of the term highly pedantic, and entirely useless

Medical data can be important.

The Constitution contains phrases like "due process", that are not strictly defined. It is the job of the courts to interpret that phrase. Something like medical data can be very relevant in determining whether or not the government has a compelling enough reason to interfere.

It is not at all unusual for the court to go to the experts in a given area when laying out guidelines for due process.
Medical data that was used to construct a legal framework that had no prior basis in law. As many people have hysterically frothed at the mouth about in these past few days, the Court cannot create new law. By forcing all future legislation to conform to a specific timetable that could be found no where in any of the avenues that the courts look to for guidance, the Court was effectively making new laws conform entirely to its own collective personal judgement about the roles that the trimesters of pregnancy should play in abortion. In other words, the Court created its own laws, rather than apply existing ones.

Your original argument was that Roe introduced a new legal framework for the Congress to adhere to. In other words, that it altered the way laws would be formulated by Congress. However, it has been amply shown that it did no such thing.
Um...what do you think the point of precedent is? I'll tell you what: it is a guide for future laws, which directly contradicts your assertion. If Congress wants to make a law regarding a subject that has been ruled on by the courts, it must adhere to precedent relevant to that subject. That's basic, 7th grade government stuff.
All it did was provide a list of suggested standards for the Congress to use if it wanted to avoid the same kinds of Constitutional problems in future. This in no way obligated the Congress to follow those standards, so in practical terms it had no effect whatsoever, beyond whatever Congress chose to do or not do with it. Therefore, it did not introduce a new legal framework as you had originally characterized it.
So Congress was not obligated to follow it...except if it wanted to address the issue. What?

It bound Congress by a new set of legal standards. I call these standards "new" because a specific timetable about trimesters came from no where but the personal opinion of the justices.

Now, you try to claim that you won your original argument by lowering the standard of your language, by switching from the specialized meaning of the term "legal framework" as you started out using it to a much more vague and generalized meaning. To that, I can only say, no shit Roe contains a legal framework. It's a law, so it kind of can't do otherwise, can it? It is structured around a legal framework, but that does not make it the introduction of a new legal framework to the US system.
Just because you misinterpreted my use of the phrase "legal framework" does not mean that my original intention fits your misinterpretation.

Medical data that was used to construct a legal framework that had no prior basis in law.

Of course it had prior basis in law. There was quite a bit of precedent that went into it. The exact time markers came out of medical data, but the guidelines themselves were based in precedent on due process, privacy, etc.

As many people have hysterically frothed at the mouth about in these past few days, the Court cannot create new law.

Indeed.

By forcing all future legislation to conform to a specific timetable that could be found no where in any of the avenues that the courts look to for guidance, the Court was effectively making new laws conform entirely to its own collective personal judgement about the roles that the trimesters of pregnancy should play in abortion. In other words, the Court created its own laws, rather than apply existing ones.

Hardly. They applied existing law to a situation that was not yet worked out.

By your argument, if the court declares a particular punishment "cruel and unusual" and/or provides guidelines on how to stay within constitutional bounds, it is creating new law. After all, it is "forcing" the states to write new laws that conform to the guidelines provided.

Medical data that was used to construct a legal framework that had no prior basis in law. As many people have hysterically frothed at the mouth about in these past few days, the Court cannot create new law. By forcing all future legislation to conform to a specific timetable that could be found no where in any of the avenues that the courts look to for guidance, the Court was effectively making new laws conform entirely to its own collective personal judgement about the roles that the trimesters of pregnancy should play in abortion. In other words, the Court created its own laws, rather than apply existing ones.

That's the job of the court. To interpret the constitution. To interpret things like person. The constitution doesn't define when rights come into play nor when we lose them (upon death). As such, it's necessary for the courts to give some guidelines.

However, it's been adequately established that your claim about "entirely new legal frameworks" doesn't hold unless you water down that phrase to make it apply to nearly every case ever decided.

It didn't creat "its own laws". It created specifications for their ruling, which is found in nearly every ruling they make.

New laws MUST adhere to EVERY decision they make. That's their role. Any law that doesn't consider ALL of their decisions as precedent is subject to being struck down by them. That you claim this is new or amounts to legislating from the bench just demonstrates your understanding of our legal framework and you don't fare well in that demonstration.

Should we point out a certain pertinent fact or should we let him humiliate himself with his misunderstanding of legal terminology some more?
I was going to say give it another page, but this:

Um...what do you think the point of precedent is? I'll tell you what: it is a guide for future laws, which directly contradicts your assertion. If Congress wants to make a law regarding a subject that has been ruled on by the courts, it must adhere to precedent relevant to that subject. That's basic, 7th grade government stuff.

So Congress was not obligated to follow it...except if it wanted to address the issue. What?

It bound Congress by a new set of legal standards. I call these standards "new" because a specific timetable about trimesters came from no where but the personal opinion of the justices.


Just because you misinterpreted my use of the phrase "legal framework" does not mean that my original intention fits your misinterpretation.
pissed me off, so go for it. :)

I'm wouldn't touch this thread with Sumamba Buwhan's penis.

Which is amusing into itself because based on that...overly broad definition, any time the supreme court, or indeed, any time any court interprets anything in any way that deviates, departs, or differentiates from existing precident it creates "a new legal framework".

To argue that Roe created a new legal framework merely because it defined the law is to say that a thousand "new legal frameworks" pop up every single day in this country.

Which makes the application of the term highly pedantic, and entirely useless
Entirely useless, except for the purpose of allowing him to keep repositioning those goalposts.

I'm wouldn't touch this thread with Sumamba Buwhan's penis.

OK, despite the horrible image this put into my head, I'm going to lunch. Later, all. ;)

Vamosa, Neo Art's a lawyer. As such, he's required to have an in-depth understanding of law. So in a disagreement as to the definition of a word as it applies to law, he's going to win out over you.

OK, despite the horrible image this put into my head, I'm going to lunch. Later, all. ;)

Muahahahahahhahaaaaaa....

Of course it had prior basis in law. There was quite a bit of precedent that went into it. The exact time markers came out of medical data, but the guidelines themselves were based in precedent on due process, privacy, etc.
The "exact time markers" is exactly what I'm addressing -- I'm not discussing, nor have I ever mentioned the right to privacy or due process. The "time markers" were based on medical concepts, and regulated based on the justice's personal opinions. There is no relevant Constitutional, statutory, common law authority, nor piece of precedent that justified the details fleshed out by the justices.

The fact that medical literature played a role in the "time markers" is inconsequential. The only relevancy that this fact has is that the justices made a trime frame based on trimesters and viability. The actual judgements about how privacy applies to these markers were arbitrary and completely based on the justice's personal opinions -- not one piece of law justified regulating abortion in light of trimesters or viability. So, in effect, the justices created new law.

By your argument, if the court declares a particular punishment "cruel and unusual" and/or provides guidelines on how to stay within constitutional bounds, it is creating new law. After all, it is "forcing" the states to write new laws that conform to the guidelines provided.
The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" actually appears in the Constitution, so the justices have the right to interpret it. Do the words trimester or viability make any appearance in the Constitution? No, they don't. So the justices had no right to invoke them.

Um...what do you think the point of precedent is? I'll tell you what: it is a guide for future laws, which directly contradicts your assertion. If Congress wants to make a law regarding a subject that has been ruled on by the courts, it must adhere to precedent relevant to that subject. That's basic, 7th grade government stuff.

Oh, dear God. You've been claiming all along that was unique about this decision was that it "require them to adhere to new guidelines". Now you admit that this is the role of precedent. Much of what they rule provides us with explanations that did not previously exist. This is a necessary function of their job.

The right to marriage didn't exist in the Constitution or precedent until it did. The right to privacy didn't exist in the Constitution or precedent until it did. There are tons of explanations, definitions and rights not enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, there is a whole amendment dedicated to the idea that certain rights are enumerated, that they knew they would leave some things out and didn't want that to be taken as those rights not existing. The court is left to define how, when and why those rights apply. It's precisely that process your "frothing at the mouth" about.


So Congress was not obligated to follow it...except if it wanted to address the issue. What?

It bound Congress by a new set of legal standards. I call these standards "new" because a specific timetable about trimesters came from no where but the personal opinion of the justices.

Every new precedent is a new set of legal standards.


Just because you misinterpreted my use of the phrase "legal framework" does not mean that my original intention fits your misinterpretation.

Heh. Hey, just keep moving the goalposts. No one will notice. It's not like anyone here is a lawyer or studied law. Clearly the only person who knows how to properly apply the phrase "entirely new legal framework" is you. By the by, do you happen to know what "entirely new" means? Generally if I say I have an "entirely new" car, for example, I don't mean that I only replace the brakes.

Vamosa, Neo Art's a lawyer. As such, he's required to have an in-depth understanding of law. So in a disagreement as to the definition of a word as it applies to law, he's going to win out over you.

Neo Art also made a false claim about Roe v. Wade a few posts back, so that shows his expertise.

Neo Art also made a false claim about Roe v. Wade a few posts back, so that shows his expertise.

That's amusing...coming from a poster who has been spewing idiotic misinterpretations of the law all over this forum.

Sorry, which law school did you attend?

The "exact time markers" is exactly what I'm addressing -- I'm not discussing, nor have I ever mentioned the right to privacy or due process. The "time markers" were based on medical concepts, and regulated based on the justice's personal opinions. There is no relevant Constitutional, statutory, common law authority, nor piece of precedent that justified the details fleshed out by the justices.

The fact that medical literature played a role in the "time markers" is inconsequential. The only relevancy that this fact has is that the justices made a trime frame based on trimesters and viability. The actual judgements about how privacy applies to these markers were arbitrary and completely based on the justice's personal opinions -- not one piece of law justified regulating abortion in light of trimesters or viability. So, in effect, the justices created new law.


The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" actually appears in the Constitution, so the justices have the right to interpret it. Do the words trimester or viability make any appearance in the Constitution? No, they don't. So the justices had no right to invoke them.

Do the words "waterboarding"? See, what they do is apply things like the right to privacy and due process, legal issues, to relevant real-world happenings in a way that allows us to make laws that are in line with the constitution. Often times this requires them to define relevant processes using outside sources, medical, technical, engineering or scientific sources. To analyze waterboarding they most assuredly would have to define it. And if they decided on waterboarding, they'd assuredly have to outline when and why their ruling would apply if they wanted it to have a broader focus. All of this is a part of their job.

That they created a new set of guidelines using relevant MEDICAL data as it relates to a *gasp* MEDICAL procedure is not only not unusual, but it's downright commonplace. You've demonstrated that not only did they not replace the whole car, but they didn't even replace the brakes on the car. SCOTUS stuck on a bumper sticker that says honk if you abort fetii. I can name hundreds of relevant cases that people are trying to get seen TODAY that would require them to incorporate educated opinion from other sources than law.

As far as you claiming they were "completely based on the judges' personal opinions", you undermine your own case. You've already admitted they weren't entirely based on that and that they considered educated medical opinion in their ruling. That's the opposite of entirely based on the judges' personal opinion.

OK, despite the horrible image this put into my head, I'm going to lunch. Later, all. ;)

pft, you liked it.

The "exact time markers" is exactly what I'm addressing -- I'm not discussing, nor have I ever mentioned the right to privacy or due process.

No, you haven't mentioned them. And that's the problem.

You're trying to pretend that this was somehow pulled out of thin air with no legal precedent. However, both the right to privacy and the idea of due process, as they have been defined over the years, were precedent in this case - and they were precedent for the guidelines in question. The court had to determine at what point, if any, the government could step in and interfere with the woman's right to privacy and still adhere to due process.

The "time markers" were based on medical concepts, and regulated based on the justice's personal opinions. There is no relevant Constitutional, statutory, common law authority, nor piece of precedent that justified the details fleshed out by the justices.

Of course there is - the right to privacy and due process are a big part of that, despite your attempts to ignore them.

The fact that medical literature played a role in the "time markers" is inconsequential. The only relevancy that this fact has is that the justices made a trime frame based on trimesters and viability. The actual judgements about how privacy applies to these markers were arbitrary and completely based on the justice's personal opinions -- not one piece of law justified regulating abortion in light of trimesters or viability. So, in effect, the justices created new law.

Actually, the law did justify it. You may not agree with the particular decision, but it isn't as if it was somehow formed outside of the existing legal framework.

Tell me, have you read Roe v. Wade?

The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" actually appears in the Constitution, so the justices have the right to interpret it. Do the words trimester or viability make any appearance in the Constitution? No, they don't. So the justices had no right to invoke them.

The phrase "lethal injection" doesn't appear in the Constitution either. I suppose that means that the courts cannot rule on the use of lethal injection in death penalty cases?

Guess what else is in the Constitution - the phrase "due process". The time points provided in Roe were the court's guidelines on how the government could stay within due process - by defining the points at which the government had a compelling enough interest to intervene.

Legally, this is exactly like a court providing guidelines for what does and does not constitute "cruel and unusual". Words like "firing squad" and "lethal injection" are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, but the court can rule on them because it has to interpret "cruel and unusual."

That's amusing...coming from a poster who has been spewing idiotic misinterpretations of the law all over this forum.

Sorry, which law school did you attend?

I'd be satisfied with him telling us what law books he's referencing.

I'd be satisfied with him telling us what law books he's referencing.

I'd be more satisfied with armchair lawyers shutting the fuck up.

Sheesh, or at least, that there be an equal ration of armchair engineers to armchair lawyers. It's ridiculous the way people believe they can achieve the knowledge and understanding of someone with a professional degree and experience because they read a case, or a wiki article. Hey guys! I'm not a brain surgeon, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night...

Don't worry Jocabia, I still hate you. Carry on.

I'd be more satisfied with armchair lawyers shutting the fuck up.

Sheesh, or at least, that there be an equal ration of armchair engineers to armchair lawyers. It's ridiculous the way people believe they can achieve the knowledge and understanding of someone with a professional degree and experience because they read a case, or a wiki article. Hey guys! I'm not a brain surgeon, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night...

Don't worry Jocabia, I still hate you. Carry on.

Except there are armchair engineers. There are armchair scientists. There are armchair realtors. Armchair politicians. Ballplayers. Manufacturers. Computer consultants.

In fact, on the internet that is ALL there are. I don't know you're studying to be a lawyer. I only know you claim to be and that your expertise supports that claim. In the end, the only thing we can analyze claims on is their support. Degrees are one kind of support, but we've all seen degreed scientists who violate the very basis of science. We've all seen degreed doctors who aren't fit to hold a stethescope.

I can tell you that the ABA holds the same view as you for the PRACTICE of law, but only required that someone who is a lawyer review the classes University.com used to produce for continuing education. They had no issue with the fact they were being written and created by non-lawyers who were simply compiling and applying information.

Except there are armchair engineers. There are armchair scientists. There are armchair realtors. Armchair politicians. Ballplayers. Manufacturers. Computer consultants.

In fact, on the internet that is ALL there are. I don't know you're studying to be a lawyer. I only know you claim to be and that your expertise supports that claim. In the end, the only thing we can analyze claims on is their support. Degrees are one kind of support, but we've all seen degreed scientists who violate the very basis of science. We've all seen degreed doctors who aren't fit to hold a stethescope.
Fair enough, but who are you going to hire to represent you, even ignoring the fact that you need degrees and other kinds of 'support' to practice the law...an armchair lawyer, or a real one?

I wouldn't get my cousin to build me a bridge no matter how much he has read about engineering. But if you'd like to hire him, I can pass along his contact info :D

Someone who has gone through the rigorous training involved in any profession is going to get a hell of a lot more respect from me that some random dude who has not. Random dude demanding respect gets derision.

Ugh, stop it, don't draw me into this...Sumamba would be upset if I got his penis dirty.

Fair enough, but who are you going to hire to represent you, even ignoring the fact that you need degrees and other kinds of 'support' to practice the law...an armchair lawyer, or a real one?

I wouldn't get my cousin to build me a bridge no matter how much he has read about engineering. But if you'd like to hire him, I can pass along his contact info :D

Someone who has gone through the rigorous training involved in any profession is going to get a hell of a lot more respect from me that some random dude who has not. Random dude demanding respect gets derision.

Ugh, stop it, don't draw me into this...Sumamba would be upset if I got his penis dirty.

Don't you, normally? ;)

Don't you, normally? ;)

Okay, he'll be mad if I get it dirty and don't lick it clean.

Fair enough, but who are you going to hire to represent you, even ignoring the fact that you need degrees and other kinds of 'support' to practice the law...an armchair lawyer, or a real one?

Oh, no question. I totally agree. But it's more than the degree. I would choose a realtor, a lawyer, a doctor, a consultant that has tons of experience in practical application for anything but the most insignificant of jobs. But that's not about their studies, but their experience. I would trust someone to have a theoretical discussion with me about building a bridge while I was in school for engineering. However, regardless of whether that person got his degree a month later or not, he's not building any bridge I'll be driving across.

I've seen you in similar debates. (At least I think I have, your name looks kind of familiar to me.) If Vamosa wasn't completely misapplying legal definitions and decisions, you'd have no issue with the fact he was discussing fairly in-depth legal issues. The problem is this guy is all over boards making legal claims that when tested don't pass.

Ugh, stop it, don't draw me into this...Sumamba would be upset if I got his penis dirty.

Heh, how would he tell?

The "exact time markers" is exactly what I'm addressing -- I'm not discussing, nor have I ever mentioned the right to privacy or due process. The "time markers" were based on medical concepts, and regulated based on the justice's personal opinions. There is no relevant Constitutional, statutory, common law authority, nor piece of precedent that justified the details fleshed out by the justices.

The fact that medical literature played a role in the "time markers" is inconsequential. The only relevancy that this fact has is that the justices made a trime frame based on trimesters and viability. The actual judgements about how privacy applies to these markers were arbitrary and completely based on the justice's personal opinions -- not one piece of law justified regulating abortion in light of trimesters or viability. So, in effect, the justices created new law.


The phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" actually appears in the Constitution, so the justices have the right to interpret it. Do the words trimester or viability make any appearance in the Constitution? No, they don't. So the justices had no right to invoke them.

The constitution mentions neither fire nor theaters, and yet Justice Holmes was not prohibited to detail how "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." was not protected by the first amendment in 1919.

I've seen you in similar debates. (At least I think I have, your name looks kind of familiar to me.) If Vamosa wasn't completely misapplying legal definitions and decisions, you'd have no issue with the fact he was discussing fairly in-depth legal issues. The problem is this guy is all over boards making legal claims that when tested don't pass.

I've slapped down law students (assuming they were really such). I've also slapped down people claiming to be lawyers who, if such was true, should certainly have known better. So lawyer, student, or armchair afficianado or not, I'll slap down anyone completely misapplying legal definitions and decisions.

I have yet to see anyone without extensive training being capable of discussing in-depth legal issues, so your point is moot. If I did actually come across some such creature who, in his or her spare time managed to make an effective self-study of the law, and apply legal principles correctly...I would be astonished and impressed. It would be a rare thing indeed, and worthy of praise.

But that has never been the case here.


Heh, how would he tell?You can't get the smell of these threads off you see...

I've slapped down law students (assuming they were really such). I've also slapped down people claiming to be lawyers who, if such was true, should certainly have known better. So lawyer, student, or armchair afficianado or not, I'll slap down anyone completely misapplying legal definitions and decisions.

I have yet to see anyone without extensive training being capable of discussing in-depth legal issues, so your point is moot. If I did actually come across some such creature who, in his or her spare time managed to make an effective self-study of the law, and apply legal principles correctly...I would be astonished and impressed. It would be a rare thing indeed, and worthy of praise.

But that has never been the case here.

Oh, I don't know. I think it depends on how specific people are willing to be. Before you entered law school you used to present extensive and strong arguments on the legal issues that tribes face.

Similarly with closet physicists and the like. Some people just don't know when to pull the reigns when their over their heads. I'm not always good about it, but I'm willing to be smacked if I put my tallywhacker where it doesn't belong.


You can't get the smell of these threads off you see...

Now, that explains a lot. As my interaction on NSG got more and more extensive my ex was less and less willing to "go near that thing".

Oh, I don't know. I think it depends on how specific people are willing to be. Before you entered law school you used to present extensive and strong arguments on the legal issues that tribes face. I'm just that smart. I'm one of those people that amazes myself.

:D

No but really, I had good teachers, who were involved in aboriginal law, and this is a big reason I entered the school.

Similarly with closet physicists and the like. Some people just don't know when to pull the reigns when their over their heads. I'm not always good about it, but I'm willing to be smacked if I put my tallywhacker where it doesn't belong. Smacking your tallywhacker is something I greatly enjoy. Stomping on it too. Oh. You didn't quite mean that?


Now, that explains a lot. As my interaction on NSG got more and more extensive my ex was less and less willing to "go near that thing".
It's getting so you can't fuck anyone but an NSGer. *shakes head sadly*

I'm just that smart. I'm one of those people that amazes myself.

:D

No but really, I had good teachers, who were involved in aboriginal law, and this is a big reason I entered the school.

Yes, that's kind of my point. I think you can get to the point where you can educatedly discuss law LONG before you can effectively practice it. To make a comparison in my field, I was pretty advanced in business computing before I entered college and the things I was taught in college were technically correct and practically laughable. For many fields, and law is an exception, those teaching often have very little practical experience.


Smacking your tallywhacker is something I greatly enjoy. Stomping on it too. Oh. You didn't quite mean that?

Heh, not all baiting that happens on this forum is against the rules.


It's getting so you can't fuck anyone but an NSGer. *shakes head sadly*

I wouldn't make too much of it. The same ex thought you were perfect for me. Remember?

Anyway, I wouldn't have sex with an NSGer with Sumamba Buwhan's penis. Unfortunately for SB, he would.

(At least I wouldn't have sex with any that would be willing to admit it.)

Yes, that's kind of my point. I think you can get to the point where you can educatedly discuss law LONG before you can effectively practice it. To make a comparison in my field, I was pretty advanced in business computing before I entered college and the things I was taught in college were technically correct and practically laughable. For many fields, and law is an exception, those teaching often have very little practical experience. Perhaps. But even my understanding of the subject at the time was severely lacking. I was able to distill certain things from what I read, and what I was told, but until I was able to get the big picture, I can't say I actually knew what I was talking about then.




Heh, not all baiting that happens on this forum is against the rules. I don't quite get your meani---- OH!


I wouldn't make too much of it. The same ex thought you were perfect for me. Remember? I thought she was just jealous because she thought we were flirting!

Anyway, I wouldn't have sex with an NSGer with Sumamba Buwhan's penis. Unfortunately for SB, he would.(At least I wouldn't have sex with any that would be willing to admit it.)
And has the video to prove it. Oh I see, want to be able to deny it hmmm? Well I fuck and tell!

Okay, he'll be mad if I get it dirty and don't lick it clean.

You know, I was about to make the "you owe me a new monitor" comment, but I realized that, in this context, it was going to be interpreted a little...too amusingly.

Okay, he'll be mad if I get it dirty and don't lick it clean.

Aw, man, I just got back from lunch. :(

Aw, man, I just got back from lunch. :(

you take a four hour lunch? It's 7:30! I only do that if I have a client to bill it to..

And Mur, TGs! :p

you take a four hour lunch? It's 7:30! I only do that if I have a client to bill it to..

And Mur, TGs! :p

Hey, I belong to the liesured class. I watched some tv and wrote some project notes.

Hey, I belong to the liesured class. I watched some tv and wrote some project notes.

ohh, tell me about the project? I really liked the work I saw so far.

ohh, tell me about the project? I really liked the work I saw so far.
??? You mean my site? Thanks. :) Nah, this time it's a writing project. Taking another stab at actually trying to finish my stinking worthless novel. It beats looking for another day job. ;)

??? You mean my site?

Yeah, what, you think I wouldn't look? :p

Thanks. :) Nah, this time it's a writing project. Taking another stab at actually trying to finish my stinking worthless novel. It beats looking for another day job. ;)

How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah?

No, no, you deserve some time off.

/familyguy

Yeah, what, you think I wouldn't look? :p
You'd be surprised how many people are a-scared to take that extra step unless I tell them to.

How you uh, how you comin' on that novel you're working on? Huh? Gotta a big, uh, big stack of papers there? Gotta, gotta nice litte story you're working on there? Your big novel you've been working on for 3 years? Huh? Gotta, gotta compelling protaganist? Yeah? Gotta obstacle for him to overcome? Huh? Gotta story brewing there? Working on, working on that for quite some time? Huh? Yea, talking about that 3 years ago. Been working on that the whole time? Nice little narrative? Beginning, middle, and end? Some friends become enemies, some enemies become friends? At the end your main character is richer from the experience? Yeah? Yeah?

No, no, you deserve some time off.

/familyguy
Yeah, pretty much.

Manatees, man. I need a tank full of manatees to get this thing done.

/end South Park ref

You'd be surprised how many people are a-scared to take that extra step unless I tell them to.

What can I say, I'm an inquisitive little scamp.

What can I say, I'm an inquisitive little scamp.
Good! Most people are like cows -- such a chore to get them to do anything. I love people who just get the site name and go to it without further assistance. :D And I'm glad you liked the work. :)

Anyway, I think I'd better get back to the writing -- see if the changes I made still make sense after a cup of coffee. Ciao, till later. And I will get back to you about that "thing." One of these days... ;)

Phone's ringing. Gotta run. :)

Wasn't this a debate about Roe Vs. Wade at some point?

Good! Most people are like cows -- such a chore to get them to do anything. I love people who just get the site name and go to it without further assistance. :D

Yay!

Anyway, I think I'd better get back to the writing

Booo

??? You mean my site? Thanks. :) Nah, this time it's a writing project. Taking another stab at actually trying to finish my stinking worthless novel. It beats looking for another day job. ;)

Neat. What sort of novel?

Wasn't this a debate about Roe Vs. Wade at some point?

Yeah, it's a bit of a shame that this has been an argument over definitions when there is an interesting discussion on the dismantling of Roe vs. Wade and the solution to this problem.

The fact remains that SCOTUS is meant to interpret and rule on the Constitution and, in Roe vs. Wade, it went beyond that by setting the 3 month rule applied to all states. That is essentially legislation - we can quibble over 'entirely new legal framework', which I'm afraid is the language of anti-choice - and in a more, the horror, the horror, conservative SCOTUS, this can be challenged and overturned.

In order to avoid this, pressure should be placed on Congress to create better legislation on this subject. Harbouring it under the 14th amendment is simply weak and attackable and the danger is that, sooner or later, it will be eroded, it's been eroded enough already.

Yeah, it's a bit of a shame that this has been an argument over definitions when there is an interesting discussion on the dismantling of Roe vs. Wade and the solution to this problem.

The fact remains that SCOTUS is meant to interpret and rule on the Constitution and, in Roe vs. Wade, it went beyond that by setting the 3 month rule applied to all states. That is essentially legislation - we can quibble over 'entirely new legal framework', which I'm afraid is the language of anti-choice - and in a more, the horror, the horror, conservative SCOTUS, this can be challenged and overturned.

In order to avoid this, pressure should be placed on Congress to create better legislation on this subject. Harbouring it under the 14th amendment is simply weak and attackable and the danger is that, sooner or later, it will be eroded, it's been eroded enough already.


You do realize that as of today, the solid "three trimester" rule of Roe is pretty much dead, right? That's not the actual legal understand anymore...

Wasn't this a debate about Roe Vs. Wade at some point?
I'm sure it will be again, when our antagonist gets back.

Neat. What sort of novel?
Horror. :)

You do realize that as of today, the solid "three trimester" rule of Roe is pretty much dead, right? That's not the actual legal understand anymore...

A lot of Roe is pretty much dead, hence the need for proper legislation.

Horror. :)

The horror...the horror....

Hmm, smells like....napalm?

The horror...the horror....

Hmm, smells like....napalm?
Sorry, no victory 'splosions. :p (Unless you count the shattered ruins of this thread.)

By the way, this overall subject is also being contested in the UK, a bill to reduce the timeframe for being able to ask for an abortion from 24 weeks to 20 has just been rejected by Parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/21/health.stemcells

Sorry, no victory 'splosions. :p (Unless you count the shattered ruins of this thread.)

pft, go watch apocalypse now.

Sorry, no victory 'splosions. :p (Unless you count the shattered ruins of this thread.)

What sort of horror? Vampires and werewolves? Lovecraftian? Thriller?

By the way, this overall subject is also being contested in the UK, a bill to reduce the timeframe for being able to ask for an abortion from 24 weeks to 20 has just been rejected by Parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/21/health.stemcells
I'm glad it was rejected, but this whole issue makes me unhappy. I am so sick of having to protect such private matters from public interference. It's just embittering.

This really says it all for me:
From the article:
"Abortion should be a private decision between the patient and her doctor, just like any other medical treatment. Why is it so difficult for societies, even one like ours, to give the power to decide to those who carry the consequences?"

What sort of horror? Vampires and werewolves? Lovecraftian? Thriller?
Supernatural. Modern. Vampires, witchcraft, old world folklore-inspired magic. Weird and difficult to plot.

Supernatural. Modern. Vampires, witchcraft, old world folklore-inspired magic. Weird and difficult to plot.

interesting...I'll have to tell you th story I've been poking at from time to time.

Well not really A story as much as a collection of shorts based on a single character with an overarching plot.

interesting...I'll have to tell you th story I've been poking at from time to time.

Well not really A story as much as a collection of shorts based on a single character with an overarching plot.

Indeed you shall...one of these days... ;)

Indeed you shall...one of these days... ;)

see, you're thinking about it :p Although in seriousness if you do care to know, drop me a line, be interested in hearing what you think.

Supernatural. Modern. Vampires, witchcraft, old world folklore-inspired magic. Weird and difficult to plot.

Neat. That sounds vaguely like a board game I'm running, that Art's being a slow pain in the ass about. If you're into Roleplay, you should check it out (I can TG the link if you're interested)

Neat. That sounds vaguely like a board game I'm running, that Art's being a slow pain in the ass about. If you're into Roleplay, you should check it out (I can TG the link if you're interested)

tell ya what. I finish up, you do my job for a day, k? :p

tell ya what. I finish up, you do my job for a day, k? :p

Assuming you take as much time with work as you do with this stuff, it must be a slow job. :p

Neat. That sounds vaguely like a board game I'm running, that Art's being a slow pain in the ass about. If you're into Roleplay, you should check it out (I can TG the link if you're interested)
Do, please. I'll check it out. I'm not that into doing RP, but the games interest me sometimes.

Assuming you take as much time with work as you do with this stuff, it must be a slow job. :p
Well, he spent most of today on NSG, so... ;)

Well, he spent most of today on NSG, so... ;)

Only for you dear. Only for you.

Do, please. I'll check it out. I'm not that into doing RP, but the games interest me sometimes.


Well, he spent most of today on NSG, so... ;)

Only join if you have some physical stats. The characters are based on ourselves in real life and the rest of the chars are lumps of crap. :p

Only join if you have some physical stats. The characters are based on ourselves in real life and the rest of the chars are lumps of crap. :p
Oh, so it's that kind of RP, is it? :p

Oh, so it's that kind of RP, is it? :p

why do you think they need a woman?

alternatively: I put on my robe and wizard hat.

Do, please. I'll check it out. I'm not that into doing RP, but the games interest me sometimes.


Well, he spent most of today on NSG, so... ;)

TG Sent.

Only join if you have some physical stats. The characters are based on ourselves in real life and the rest of the chars are lumps of crap. :p

Hey! We lumps of crap take issue with that remark :p
(I may not be playing, but my stats are up there for the world to see)

why do you think they need a woman?

alternatively: I put on my robe and wizard hat.

Hahahaha. Ah, I haven't seen that cybersex chat log referenced in ages. Bloodninja. Bwahahaha.

Only for you dear. Only for you.

TG, you.

And, Deus, thanks for the link. :)

why do you think they need a woman?

alternatively: I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Kinky. :p

TG, you.

And, Deus, thanks for the link. :)

My pleasure.

TG, you.

Got it, replied to it. Told ya :p

Kinky. :p

Google it. You'll thank me later.

Got it, replied to it. Told ya :p
Yeah, yeah, Madam NeoArtsky knows all, tells all. :p

Google it. You'll thank me later.

Google what? Robe and wizard hat? Yeah, that'll be a nice narrow search. TG me a keyword.

Yeah, yeah, Madam NeoArtsky knows all, tells all. :p



Google what? Robe and wizard hat? Yeah, that'll be a nice narrow search. TG me a keyword.

Bloodninja - they really are pretty funny.

Yeah, yeah, Madam NeoArtsky knows all, tells all. :p

Only if you get the quarter into my mouth...

Google what? Robe and wizard hat? Yeah, that'll be a nice narrow search. TG me a keyword.

Done.