XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime
XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism
From: gowch@SPAMTHEENOThotmail.com
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:40:40 GMT, wrote:
[snip]
IG:
==>> Say what? Why would reliance on law and
==>> common sense argue for prohibition? Seems
==>> to me, it does the exact opposite.
==>Because before Roe v Wade reliance on law and the common view of the
==>majority, which is what common sense is,
==>would have prevented any change in the law.
Nonsense. For one thing, you have no idea
what the "common view of the majority" was
before Roe vs. Wade. For another, just because
something is the "common view" does not make
it "common sense." The "common view" used
to be that the world was flat. No common sense
in that.
In addition, the law didn't change with Roe vs.
Wade. The blanket prohibition on abortion
disappeared entirely, because it was found to
violate the Constitution.
==> Now, you want to use reliance on
==>the law and common sense to
==>support your position when before Row v Wade a similar reliance would have
==>opposed your position.
What the hell are you talking about? The Supreme
Court said the law banning abortion was
unconstitutional. Period. My "position" has nothing
to do with it.
==>You can't have it,both ways. The solution is to realize that this issue
==>needs to be decided on moral grounds and then we need
==>to implement those grounds into law.
Whose morality will decide the issue? Yours?
Mine?
The Supreme Court ruling means that the decision
is left up to the morality of each individual woman,
and no one has the legal authority to interfere with
it. And that seems like perfect justice.
[snip]
==>> We haven't gone to any extreme. And you're right --
==>> it's not rocket science. Women have an absolute
==>> right to terminate their pregnancies within the
==>> first trimester, a "qualified" right to do so later.
==>So I see that you finally agree with me. Thanks. This is what I have been
==>arguing for all along.
==>The question that remains is how to "qualify" the right after the first
==>trimester. You were supporting
==>a poition that would allow unqualified abortion for the entire term of the
==>pregnancy.
I was, and I am. Until a fetus leaves the womb
and breathes on its own it is, IMO, the sole property
of its host, the mother, and no one else should
have anything to say about its disposition.
[snip]
==>> ==>As for my comment about adoptees, I admit I did pull it out of my ass.
==>That
==>> ==>is what common sense is!
IG:
==>> Making up "facts" to support an argument is usually
==>> considered "lying," not "common sense."
==>I didn't make up facts. I expressed what I viewed as the common
==>sense view of the matter. If you disagree then quote some statistics that
==>support your position.
Statistics don't support or refute my position,
which simply is . . . a woman's body is her own,
anything growing inside it is her own, she
has the right to do with both what she likes
and everyone else should shut the hell up
and mind their own damn business.
--
Better an abortion clinic on every streetcorner
than the birth of one more unwanted child.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
