the fallacy behind roe.vs.wade?

Question:

FROM THE DERANGED ORIGINAL POSTER hIMSELF: in fact, i was being sarcastic. it is interesting though, that some folks perceived it as sincerity. basically, all i did was spout ludicrous rhetoric that did nothing but echo g.will’s ludicrous rhetoric. i can’t blame anyone for a lack of humor, though: rather, i’d point my crabby finger at the notable lack of substance in the rhetoric of those i was mocking. when sarcasm becomes unintelligible from supposedly reasoned debate, something has gone fighteningly wrong.

Well, I didn’t think it was much like sarcasm or reasoned debate. That’s why I didn’t respond to it. It seemed more like a gibberish or random disconnected thoughts to me. Sarcasm is a very blunt tool, anyway, so care in its use is advised. George Will, though I often disagree with his conclusions, does not suffer from an inability to make himself clearly understood. On that count, at least, he has an advantage over you and your dismemberment of his article. — —- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 408-756-0895 USA

Response:

Yep, I’d say so. Your post sounded at least as serious as some of the net.spew I’ve seen here lately. It may have been intended as sarcasm, but if so it wasn’t *nearly* exaggerated enough. Plenty of folks have said things *much* more outrageous than anything in your original post in complete sincerity. IMHO, most forms of hyperbole are wasted on any news.group that gets regular dumps from people like Steve Chaney. [...] and as to my hypothetical derangement: of course i am. purely in self-defense, though.

Around here, who’s to notice? peace, dave liebman

Chuck No .sig, no frills, no foolin’ — The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Response:

] ] ] Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the ] `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, ] obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation. Not since WaterGate have I seen so Valiant and NOBLE and Heroic a Defense of the Right to Protect Persons from themSelves….. Now that we have Ended this Silly Notion of the ‘right of privacy’ hopefully we can follow along with the State Courts in Florida, {in the case where they ruled that the State Interests in the welfare of Children over ruled both MEDICAL ETHICS, and religious Freedom, in the matter of Transfussions for Jehovah’s Witness.} { Not To Mention their Current Policy to OutLaw Bungiee Jumping as it is Dangerous, and someone, somewhere got killed doing it } And its Legislature, and Start FINALLY protecting the Citizens from their OWN DANGEROUS SELF!!!! We can Now Start Monitoring them for the times when they Might ThinkWrongThoughts, and For the Welfare of the Children, protect them From Subsequent WrongThoughts. Oh Thank You Generic Fellow for Leading Us Forward into the NewAgeOfGoldenEnlightenMentAndProtectionFromWrongThinking!!!! ciao drieux ps: I do feel so much safer now knowing that the state will no longer worry about silly things like Privacy, when it seeks to ReachOutAndTouchSomeOne. — I Do Not Believe in .sig files as they are such a Known Waste Of BandWidth, And Therefore Not a Morally UpRight Choice. But I Can See the HideousHienousHandOfHeteroSexualityBehindItAll.

Response:

Now that we have Ended this Silly Notion of the ‘right of privacy’ hopefully we can follow along with the State Courts in Florida, {in the case where they ruled that the State Interests in the welfare of Children over ruled both MEDICAL ETHICS, and religious Freedom, in the matter of Transfussions for Jehovah’s Witness.} { Not To Mention their Current Policy to OutLaw Bungiee Jumping as it is Dangerous, and someone, somewhere got killed doing it }

Not to mention Thong bathing suits, because it causes eyestrain in all the old fogeys and there aren’t enough of them to go around and be nice to all the old biddies anyway, for heaven sake. — —- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 408-756-0895 USA

Response:

[much sarcasm deleted] i too was being sarcastic. trying to. dave (generic fellow) — The Twisted Banana BBS, Ithaca, NY

Response:

some political logic of the highest caliber: George Will writes (July 2, 1992):

[ Deleted. ] Er, just to put straight the follow-ups that have already appeared … the original poster (Dave Liebman) was being *sarcastic* in his comments on Will’s article. He didn’t really think Will’s logic was of the highest caliber. Okay? — — The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Response:

ANY lawyer who tries to insert itself into the doctor-patient relationship should be charged with practicing medicine without a license, tortured, then executed. America’s main problem is: Too many lawyers, too many cops, not enough teachers. Alan Kirk

Response:

What are your qualifications to practice hermeneutics on the postings of Dave Liebman? Are you his mouthpiece? His alter-ego? His mother? Sounded to me like he approved of Will’s analysis, based on the remarks he attached. — —- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 408-756-0895 USA

Response:

Er, just to put straight the follow-ups that have already appeared … the original poster (Dave Liebman) was being *sarcastic* in his comments on Will’s article. He didn’t really think Will’s logic was of the highest caliber. Okay? What are your qualifications to practice hermeneutics on the postings of Dave Liebman? Are you his mouthpiece? His alter-ego? His mother?

No, just a careful reader. Why, what are your qualifications? Sounded to me like he approved of Will’s analysis, based on the remarks he attached.

Well, look, let’s compromise. If he was being sarcastic, there’s no reason to respond to his post. If he wasn’t, he’s clearly far too deranged for it to be worth anyone’s time to respond to his post. Note the common factor. Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059

– — The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Response:

America’s main problem is: Too many lawyers, too many cops, not enough teachers.

I’d ammend that to "not enough teachers who aren’t members of the NEA." Belonging to a group that is a champion of mediocrity and stifler of excellence doesn’t help… — Serfs up — Spartacus

Response:

None. But I just reported what it sounded like to me. You claimed to know what he was thinking. Sounded to me like he approved of Will’s analysis, based on the remarks he attached. Well, look, let’s compromise. If he was being sarcastic, there’s no reason to respond to his post. If he wasn’t, he’s clearly far too deranged for it to be worth anyone’s time to respond to his post. Note the common factor.

Good point. That’s probably why I didn’t respond to his. Responding to yours was fun, though. You didn’t seem too far deranged, just overreaching and very slightly arrogant. That’s a target within range. — —- Mark E. Slagle PO Box 61059 408-756-0895 USA

Response:

FROM THE DERANGED ORIGINAL POSTER hIMSELF: Er, just to put straight the follow-ups that have already appeared … the original poster (Dave Liebman) was being *sarcastic* in his comments on Will’s article. He didn’t really think Will’s logic was of the highest caliber. Okay? What are your qualifications to practice hermeneutics on the postings of Dave Liebman? Are you his mouthpiece? His alter-ego? His mother? No, just a careful reader. Why, what are your qualifications?

in fact, i was being sarcastic. it is interesting though, that some folks perceived it as sincerity. basically, all i did was spout ludicrous rhetoric that did nothing but echo g.will’s ludicrous rhetoric. i can’t blame anyone for a lack of humor, though: rather, i’d point my crabby finger at the notable lack of substance in the rhetoric of those i was mocking. when sarcasm becomes unintelligible from supposedly reasoned debate, something has gone fighteningly wrong. Sounded to me like he approved of Will’s analysis, based on the remarks he attached. Well, look, let’s compromise. If he was being sarcastic, there’s no reason to respond to his post. If he wasn’t, he’s clearly far too deranged for it to be worth anyone’s time to respond to his post. Note the common factor.

hm, i disagree. bringing forth coherent attacks on arguments like will’s (someone, i can’t recall who, wrote an excellent rebuttal that relied on legal precedent, rather than ideological statement — it’s around here somewhere) is extremely important. if even one single neoconservative fool happens to read such a rebuttal, something (perhaps small) has been accomplished. and as to my hypothetical derangement: of course i am. purely in self-defense, though. peace, dave liebman

Response:

some political logic of the highest caliber: George Will writes (July 2, 1992): [quoting from Roe vs. Wade] “ `The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendement’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’ In that Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, the court announced a `fundamental’ right to abortion. That right is a subsidy of the `privacy’ right that the court discovered in 1965. As for attaching those two rights to a particular part of the Constitution’s text, the court treated that as a trivial detail, almost a matter of taste. You say the Ninth Amendment, I say the Fourteenth. You say Tomato, I say Tomahto. How suitable that the decision later defended by ‘pro- choice’ rests on a judicial invitation to choose where you say the Constitution contains the `fundamental’ right to abortion.” Finally, the insane logic of Roe vs. Wade has been revealed. A socio- political belief which is maintained by the principles of _two_ Constitutional Amendments is a perversion of political logic, if not an utter fabrication. The dissension between two courts as to the proper Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation. As Will points out: “…[t]he `undue burden’ test [which the Court offered as a principle for determining a state's right to impose restrictions on abortion] is just another flight of judicial legislation.” It must be evident that the high court’s willingness to make rulings of such an _absurdly precise and definitive_ nature represents a shameless transgression of the court’s Constitutional authority. Furthermore, the plaintive cries forthcoming, no doubt, from `pro-choice’ that the court’s undue-burden criteria represents a violation of `fundamental rights’ should be taken as yet another demonstration of vapid liberalism — yet another attempt to batantly disregard what Will calls “the process of persuasion and accomodation, sometimes called democracy.” The court was quite clearly responding to the hidden agenda of over half of the nation’s citizens; the danger that lies in this subversion of democracy is unmistakable. er, dave liebman

Response:

Finally, the insane logic of Roe vs. Wade has been revealed. A socio- political belief which is maintained by the principles of _two_ Constitutional Amendments is a perversion of political logic, if not an utter fabrication. The dissension between two courts as to the proper Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation.

You must be one of those fellows that thinks that if a right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t exist. Go back and read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments — they were written just for you, Bunky. —

Response:

some political logic of the highest caliber: George Will writes (July 2, 1992):

Hey, I thought you’d post some political logic of the highest caliber. Instead you post George Will’s comments. What gives? :-) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [quoting from Roe vs. Wade] “ `The right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendement’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’ In that Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, the court announced a `fundamental’ right to abortion. That right is a subsidy of the `privacy’ right that the court discovered in 1965. As for attaching those two rights to a particular part of the Constitution’s text, the court treated that as a trivial detail, almost a matter of taste. You say the Ninth Amendment, I say the Fourteenth. You say Tomato, I say Tomahto. How suitable that the decision later defended by ‘pro- choice’ rests on a judicial invitation to choose where you say the Constitution contains the `fundamental’ right to abortion.”

This is silly. All the court has to do is provide constitutional support for their argument (which they did siting the 14th A). Whether the 9th *also* covers the privacy issue is a question that does not need to be answered inorder to to rule on the central question before the court. As Justice O’Conner pointed out in her dissent in Rust-v-Sullivan a basic concept of judicial restraint is that the court should only address issue central to the case. To address issues not central to the case before the court is judicial activism. Finally, the insane logic of Roe vs. Wade has been revealed. A socio- political belief which is maintained by the principles of _two_ Constitutional Amendments is a perversion of political logic, if not an utter fabrication.

1) the court based their decision on only one amendment (the 14th). There is no basis for your contention that the court used two amendments to support their decision. 2) the court did not have to rule on the issue of the 9th A because the 14th A is enough to cover the issue. 3) amendments can overlap in their protection. For example, the governemnt taking your property could violate the 5th A (takings clause) and the 14th A ("nor shall the states deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). Clauses within amendments can overlap (free speech and religion in the 1st). It is not uncommon for lawyers to claim that several amendments were violated, knowing that they only need the court to agree with one. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The dissension between two courts as to the proper Constitutional reference quite clearly indicates that, in fact, the `right to privacy’ lacks any basis _whatsoever_ in the Constitution, obviously an illusory product of judicial legislation. As Will points out: “…[t]he `undue burden’ test [which the Court offered as a principle for determining a state's right to impose restrictions on abortion] is just another flight of judicial legislation.” It must be evident that the high court’s willingness to make rulings of such an _absurdly precise and definitive_ nature represents a shameless transgression of the court’s Constitutional authority. Furthermore, the plaintive cries forthcoming, no doubt, from `pro-choice’ that the court’s undue-burden criteria represents a violation of `fundamental rights’ should be taken as yet another demonstration of vapid liberalism — yet another attempt to batantly disregard what Will calls “the process of persuasion and accomodation, sometimes called democracy.”

Cool rhetoric, but lacking substance. From PP-v-Casey: BLACKMUN: "I join parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI of the joint opinion… What has happened today should serve as a model for future Justices and a warning to all who have tried to turn this Court into yet another political branch." "[W]hile I believe that the joint opinion errs in failing to invalidate the other regulations, I am pleased that the joint opinion has not ruled out the possibility that these regulations may be shown to impose an unconstitutional burden. The joint opinion makes clear that its specific holdings are based on the insufficiency of the record before it." "Under [the strict scrutiny] standard, the Pennsylvania statute’s provisions requiring content-based counseling, a 24-hour delay, informed parental consent, and reporting of abortion-related information must be invalidated." "By restricting the right to terminate pregnancies, the State conscripts women’s bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies, suffer the pains of childbirth, and in most instances, provide years of maternal care. The State does not compensate women for their services; instead, it assumes that they owe this duty as a matter of course. This assumption-that women can simply be forced to accept the -natural- status and incidents of motherhood-appears to rest upon a conception of women’s role that has triggered the protection of the Equal Protection Clause." "In my view, application of [the trimester] framework is no less warranted than when it was approved by seven Members of this Court in Roe. Strict scrutiny of state limitations on reproductive choice still offers the most secure protection of the woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions, free from state coercion… [T]he Roe framework is far more administrable, and far less manipulable, than the -undue burden- standard adopted by the joint opinion…. [W]hile a State has -legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child… legitimate interests are not enough. To overcome the burden of strict scrutiny, the interests must be compelling." "Application of the strict scrutiny standard results in the invalidation of all the challenged provisions. Indeed, as this Court has invalidated virtually identical provisions in prior cases, stare decisis requires that we again strike them down." To satisfy the "strict scrutiny" standard (as used in Roe), the State would have to demonstrate a Constitutitonal basis for their restrictions. The state did not demonstrate that basis. What the court did was reduce abortion (as covered by the right to privacy) from a "fundamental right" to a "liberty interest". As a "liberty interest" the state has a lower standard in which to base their state interest. The majority ruled that the state met that lower standard so the upheld the PA law (except for one provision). The court was quite clearly responding to the hidden agenda of over half of the nation’s citizens; the danger that lies in this subversion of democracy is unmistakable.

This is a *Constitutional Democracy*. The intent of the founding fathers was/is to "subvert" democracy. The fact that a ballot initiative on whether to kill you would be unConstitutional is also a "subversion of democracy", but that "subversion" is a good idea. er, dave liebman

– Russ Anderson | Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect EX-Twins’ Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)

Response:

Filed under: Judicial Activism

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism