Please explain how.Quote:
You're taking that out of context, m'dear.
Yes. We certainly wouldn't want to make a call for female responsibility.Quote:
All the more reason for mandatory reversible vasectomies just before puberty.
|
Please explain how.Quote:
You're taking that out of context, m'dear.
Yes. We certainly wouldn't want to make a call for female responsibility.Quote:
All the more reason for mandatory reversible vasectomies just before puberty.
What was the ENTIRE quote?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You and I exist and have become the wonderful human beings that we are because of female responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You claimed I took a quote out of context, but you don't even know the context? Hmm. Sounds like another of your shots in the dark.
Yes, and male responsibility as well. But that doesn't change the fact that female irresponsibility leads to hundreds of thousands of abortions.Quote:
You and I exist and have become the wonderful human beings that we are because of female responsibility.
Here, I'll help --Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
“Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” Blackburn asked.
“Can I provide a definition?” Jackson repeated the question.
“Mmhmm, yeah,” Blackburn confirmed.
“I can’t,” Jackson replied.
“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.
"Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said, adding, "In my work as a judge, what I do is address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide."
I was posting while you were carping.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If there were males in our lives, we were very blessed. Far too many don't have responsible fathers - just "shoot and run" impregnators.Quote:
Yes, and male responsibility as well. But that doesn't change the fact that female irresponsibility leads to hundreds of thousands of abortions.
And what do you plan to do with those hundreds of thousands of babies not aborted?
So you really believe that a person has to be a biologist to know what a "woman" is? So that means that 99.9% of the American people are not qualified to know what a "woman" is?
"Pastor, I'd like to marry this person, but I can't since, not being a biologist, I'm not sure I know what a 'woman' is."
"I had a date with a wonderful person last night. She might have been a woman, but I'm not sure since I'm not a biologist and thus am not qualified to know for sure."
Second grade teacher. "Now children, let's have all the girls line up on this side of the room, and all the boys on the other side. Oh wait! We can't do that since none of us are biologists and are thus not qualified to know these things."
I'm not a expert on rhetoric, but I do know when a person is simply dodging a question and looking really foolish in doing so.
Far too many also don't have responsible mothers.Quote:
If there were males in our lives, we were very blessed. Far too many don't have responsible fathers - just "shoot and run" impregnators.
I don't plan on doing anything with them. They are not my children. But I sure don't plan on following your logic and having the pesky little irritants (in your view) killed.Quote:
And what do you plan to do with those hundreds of thousands of babies not aborted?
A friend is 47XXY. How would you classify that?
- just "shoot and run" impregnators.
Who love that the nation allows the snuffing of babies they make so they can avoid the responsibility.
I heard all day yesterday the silly argument that Roe was the law of the land for 50 years . As previously stated ;Plessy v Ferguson was the law for 58 years before Brown v Board of Education reversed it .
There is no such a thing as a super precedent when the decision is a bad and unconstitutional one .
Who agrees with me ? Ketanji Brown Jackson does . In her confirmation hearing she said" I am not aware of any ranking or grading of precedents. All precedents of the Supreme Court are entitled to respect on an equal basis."
This counters the lunatic ranting by various Dem Senators including the Schmuckster or various Reps like Pramila Jayapal who said SCOTUS has "no right to change this law ".
I would describe Klinefelter syndrome as a genetic defect amongst males. As one site put it, "Klinefelter syndrome (KS) also known as 47,XXY or XXY, is the set of symptoms that result from two or more X chromosomes in males." It's a genetic disorder in the same fashion that Down Syndrome is. But wouldn't it be true that since you are not a biologist, then neither I, K. Brown, or you, agreeing with K.B. as you do, would expect you to be able to comment on that?
She should have declined to answer on that one. It just illustrates why she lamely refused to say what "woman" means. Words have a way of coming back to haunt you. Beyond that, it's hard to imagine she is "not aware of" the concept of super-precedents. Barrett was very open in her discussion of them.Quote:
Who agrees with me ? Ketanji Brown Jackson does . In her confirmation hearing she said" I am not aware of any ranking or grading of precedents. All precedents of the Supreme Court are entitled to respect on an equal basis."
so just how bad a ruling was Roe ? The truth is that it is hard to find legal scholars who support the right to kill a baby who say Roe was good constitutional law.
Here is a sample of some ;a couple may surprise you so I will start at the top.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg ... “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”
(see other comments about Roe by RBG here )
Microsoft Word - Document1 (usccb.org)
Lawrence Tribe Harvard Law school and lawyer for Al Gore's 2000 campaign .
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
Supreme Court Did Not Resolve Abortion Controversy: It Created It | USCCB
Edward Lazarus former clerk to Justice Harry Blackburn ;author of the Roe ruling .
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method,Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”
….
“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”
The rap against liberals is that they do not care about the text or history of the Constitution and do not have any principled method for interpreting the document. Instead, they simply enshrine their moral choices in the Constitution under the guise of interpretation. In common parlance, this is called legislating from the bench.
There is some truth to this charge. In the 1970s, for example, liberal justices declared the death penalty per se unconstitutional even though the Constitution's due process clause (which protects against the deprivation of "life" absent due process of law) explicitly contemplates the idea of capital punishment. Roe v. Wade is another example. The generalized right to privacy on which the 1973 ruling is based has no obvious textual basis in the Constitution; the decision's grounding in history and precedent is scant; and the opinion itself spends only a few sentences trying to explain its constitutional justification.
Liberals have tried to paper over these flaws with nice-sounding rhetoric about the Constitution's grand promises of individual liberty and the "evolving standards" that infuse them with meaning. A case can be made for this -- up to a point. But when unelected, life-tenured judges use their power of judicial review to overturn the enactments of elected representatives, there has to be some greater justification than a judge's own sense of modern morality or wise policy.
Liberals, Don't Make Her an Icon (archive.org)
Stunningly accurate.Quote:
The rap against liberals is that they do not care about the text or history of the Constitution and do not have any principled method for interpreting the document. Instead, they simply enshrine their moral choices in the Constitution under the guise of interpretation. In common parlance, this is called legislating from the bench.
The so called 'right to privacy ' is very loosely based on the 9th amendment which is a catch all amendment that says that because the framers of the Bill of Rights could not possibly enumerate all the rights the people hold does not mean the right doesn't exist. So, in Griswald v Connecticut Justice William Douglas concocted a word salad and wrote that penumbras, formed by emanations” from non-textual “guarantees" give "life and substance” to the right to privacy.
A penumbra is a partial shadow during an eclipse . An emanation is gas from radioactive decay ;an emission . Best guess is that some rights are concocted out of thin air .
Roe expanded that right to eliminate one of the very basic guarantees and protections in the constitution ....the right to life.
I thought Blackburn invented the "penumbra" justification of abortion rights. Didn't realize it went back to the Griswald decision.
This was part of Black's dissent. "I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions. I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."
Clueless is demagoguing this for all it is worth . Today he said that the SCOTUS potential ruling could mean that states can pass laws that "children who are LGBTQ++xyz cannot be in classrooms with other children.".....segregate children by sexual identity .
When Peppermint Patty Psaki was asked what he had in mind she said he had nothing in particular except that the Court and Republicans are "capable of" anything.
The Dems are alternately spinning Handmaid's Tale fiction and Grimm's Brother horror about Republican boogie men coming to take your children away.
I won't say what I'm thinking.Quote:
what he had in mind
I wonder what liberal dems think about the plunging births of children with Down Syndrome? It's happening because there are tests that can detect that genetic abnormality in the womb, so many of them are simply aborted. What if tests are developed that are able to detect LGBTQ babies in the womb? Will liberal dems be OK with parents saying, "Abort the little pervert!!" How about parents aborting female babies because the dad wants sons who can be great athletes? Are liberal dems OK with all of that?
Please list five reasons why women want an abortion.
Those reasons sound like what has come out of the mouths (whispered, of course) of conservative Republicans I've known all my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Evasive as always.
Evasive how? I have no idea how "liberal dems" would answer -- except by reading the newspaper and watching tv news. You can do that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You're the biggest liberal dem on this site.
Come to think of it, I guess you are now the ONLY liberal dem here.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 PM. |