NationStates Jolt Archive

Roe v. Wade provided specifics on abortions. It set arbitrary, yet specific guidelines. Generally when people claim "legislation from the bench" they are talking about constructionism vs. activism when it comes to the Constitution. When I use the term as applied to Roe v. Wade I am talking about actual law being created by the Supreme Court.

They didn't create law. They created guidelines for laws that they would not strike down. They basically said, "This law is unconstitutional. Here are what a law would have to allow to be constitutional."

This is nothing new. They do it in decisions all the time.

First of all, the trimester system has long ago been replaced.

My point was not that Roe v. Wade has since been corrected, it was that Roe v. Wade was poor form by the Supreme Court.

By your argument, it would have been better for the Court to say no abortions could ever be banned or regulated than for the Court to say at "X point abortions can be banned."

You are not incorrect.

They didn't create law. They created guidelines for laws that they would not strike down.
The distinction is as arbitrary as the law they created.

My point was not that Roe v. Wade has since been corrected, it was that Roe v. Wade was poor form by the Supreme Court.

You are not incorrect.

The distinction is as arbitrary as the law they created.

First, there is nothing "arbitrary" about the Roe system or its successors.

Second, it is both absurd and disingenuous to assert that Roe would have been OK if it had treated abortion as an absolute right that could never be regulated or denied.

Third, I'm still waiting for you to define the difference between "legislating from the bench" and exercising the power of judicial review.

My point was not that Roe v. Wade has since been corrected, it was that Roe v. Wade was poor form by the Supreme Court.



You are not incorrect.


The distinction is as arbitrary as the law they created.
So...unable to counter the specific arguments made, you attempt to wave off the whole point by claiming that it's ALL arbitrary and therefore not legitimate? And although TCT has pointed out the logical reasoning behind the Roe system (as well as the fact that we have already moved beyond it), you still insist on attack Roe on the grounds that it is "arbitrary"? According to whose standards then -- yours? And how did you come up with your measures of arbitrariness? Arbitrarily, by any chance?

The distinction is as arbitrary as the law they created.

They didn't create any law. They pointed out what types of laws could fit within constitutional guidelines. That's what they're there for.

They could have just said, "This law is unconstitutional" and left it at that. But without an explanation of why, and how a law could be devised that would fit within the guidelines of the Constitution, they would have needed hundreds more decisions on the same topic to finally carve out what is and is not an acceptable level of government intrusion. Instead, they pointed it out from the beginning, and thus have only needed to make a few further abortion-related decisions.

First, there is nothing "arbitrary" about the Roe system or its successors.

Second, it is both absurd and disingenuous to assert that Roe would have been OK if it had treated abortion as an absolute right that could never be regulated or denied.

Third, I'm still waiting for you to define the difference between "legislating from the bench" and exercising the power of judicial review.

So...unable to counter the specific arguments made, you attempt to wave off the whole point by claiming that it's ALL arbitrary and therefore not legitimate? And although TCT has pointed out the logical reasoning behind the Roe system (as well as the fact that we have already moved beyond it), you still insist on attack Roe on the grounds that it is "arbitrary"? According to whose standards then -- yours? And how did you come up with your measures of arbitrariness? Arbitrarily, by any chance?

If I'm reading VC correctly it's this distinction she's calling arbitrary . . .


They didn't create law. They created guidelines for laws that they would not strike down.

Not Roe V. Wade itself.

So, VC is still wrong but you need to use different arguments.

If I'm reading VC correctly it's this distinction she's calling arbitrary . . .


And if you read me properly, you will see that I am pointing to the logical basis for the standards laid out in Roe.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Roe or not, since the standards are based, via logical reasoning, on observable reality, they cannot be called "arbitrary" unless:

1) One can show that there were other equally valid standards that could have been applied and there was no particular reason for picking this one over another; or

2) One arbitrarily decides to define "arbitrary" in some arbitrary way.

The SCOTUS had a reason for picking those standards that was directly related to the matter before them. That makes the standards not arbitrary.

Indeed, there are, AFAIK, no legal grounds for, say, breaking and entering "if you otherwise risk dying from exposure". And this is a foetus breaking and entering A BODY.

(Did I spell "foetus" right?)

Technically, it's more like fœtus, but I won't tell if you won't. :tongue:

*checks the self-incinerator*

This thread done yet?

*sniff*

Nope.

*closes door*

The silly thing is that this attempt to challenge Roe makes South Dakota's in 2006 look practically reasonable.

I agree with whoever said that the real outrage should be for the waste of time and taxpayer resources. And I just paid half a year's taxes in that state, dammit!

If I'm reading VC correctly it's this distinction she's calling arbitrary . . .

Maybe you missed this post:

Roe v. Wade provided specifics on abortions. It set arbitrary, yet specific guidelines. Generally when people claim "legislation from the bench" they are talking about constructionism vs. activism when it comes to the Constitution. When I use the term as applied to Roe v. Wade I am talking about actual law being created by the Supreme Court.

Next thing you know they'll pass laws making condoms and birth control pills illegal, this is after they start arresting women that have still birth's and electrecuting them in the chair, because we all know these same dirtbags who are against abortion are the same ones that support the death penalty for murderers; because you can't not be a hypocrite and a conservative.

Here, by the way, is the text of the legislation: pdf (http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JRDS0200.pdf), html (http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:GCEtC_9FwKQJ:www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JRDS0200.pdf+North+Dakota+HB+1572&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us)
"Human being means any organism, including the single-cell human embryo,
irrespective of the method of reproduction, who possesses a genome specific
for and consistent with an individual member of the human species."

So, cancer cells now also count as human beings?!?

"Human being means any organism, including the single-cell human embryo,
irrespective of the method of reproduction, who possesses a genome specific
for and consistent with an individual member of the human species."

So, cancer cells now also count as human beings?!?

It is disgusting to me that you would fail to recognize the rights of a tumor.

It is disgusting to me that you would fail to recognize the rights of a tumor.

It's not a tuma.

It's not a tuma.

Its not a tuma. Its not tuma. At all.

It's not a tuma.

Good reference.

"Human being means any organism, including the single-cell human embryo,
irrespective of the method of reproduction, who possesses a genome specific
for and consistent with an individual member of the human species."

So, cancer cells now also count as human beings?!?

nah first off cause cancer is not an organism and second because cancer is a mutation of the Human Genome thus not actually human DNA.

Bacteria, Viruses and Prions on the other hand could be considered human if you bastardize the meaning of this bill enough.

Also you could create real human beings simply by injecting any organism with human DNA. wouldn't that be awesome ? need a population boost? just go inject some yeast and problem solved.

Moronic extremist! This is the work of Morons I tell you!

fixed XD

It is disgusting to me that you would fail to recognize the rights of a tumor.
Yeah, sorry to disappoint ya.
It's not a tuma.
Hehe, oh boy! Kindergarden Cop at its best.
nah first off cause cancer is not an organism and second because cancer is a mutation of the Human Genome thus not actually human DNA.
organism (plural organisms)
1. (biology) A discrete and complete living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus or microorganism.
2. (by extension) Any complex thing with properties normally associated with living things.

A single human cell implanted in and dependent on its host is not an (independent) organism, either. Because that's what a fertilized egg is: A single cell. (Okay, it's dividing soon enough, but it starts out as that). It's part of the mother's body.

It does have the potential to grow into a human being and then become an organism after birth - but before mother and child are seperated... Nope.

Yet, by saying that cancer is a mutation of the human genome (which it is, I don't disagree with you!), wouldn't that also mean that those people who are clearly human but have mutations in their genome like XXY, XXXY, XYY, trisomy 21 or other mutations do not have human DNA?
And while cancerous cells work against the original genetic programming, they still consist of human DNA, albeit mutated.
Bacteria, Viruses and Prions on the other hand could be considered human if you bastardize the meaning of this bill enough.
Really? How so?
Also you could create real human beings simply by injecting any organism with human DNA. wouldn't that be awesome ? need a population boost? just go inject some yeast and problem solved.
Isn't that how artificial insulin is created? By putting the right genes into bacteria which then mass-produce it? (Then again, that's only certain genes or strands of DNA, not a complete set which could make up a human).