But how can you complain if you think that interpretation matters over text? If Constitutionality is interpretive, why can't new interpretations supersede old ones? If the Constitution has to change with the times, why not rulings on it? Why should a ruling be held more sacrosanct than the text it rules on? (I'm playing Devil's advocate here...I actually believe in stare decisis.) Incidentally, Joe Biden just said the Heller decision was a mistake, so it's not clear he believes in stare decisis, either.
Wrong. The President and Senate can decide which way to go. But, that is not the same thing as one interpretation is more legitimate than others. In fact, I'd argue that the President and Senate should be completely excluded from making the decision. The decision should go to Constitutional Scholars - a group specifically devoted to interpreting the Constitution.
You're just arguing in circles here. You want the conservative Supreme Court to be activist when it comes to reversing precedents you don't like, which of course is what you're accusing me of. Most of us feel that slavery is a despicable concept and an embarrassment to the Constitution which legitimized it. Dred Scott was possibly the most horrifying example of the court being wrong. I don't necessarily agree that Heller was wrong. Whether I think it was a great ruling or not, I can live with it. Unlike today's conservatives I am willing to live with the fact that I won't always get the whole loaf and am not willing to throw tantrums if I don't. So when it comes down to righting historic wrongs do we just shed crocodile tears and say "there's nothing we can do. Sucks to be you."? or should someone act to do what's plainly right? Ironically that's the same argument abortion opponents make, although the idea of a medical procedure being banned by law because of religious grounds is deplorable itself. Also the hypocrisy of the anti abortion forces who would criminalize the act, but do nothing to mitigate the circumstances that lead to abortion is reprehensible.
I literally said 'I believe in stare decisis' in the text you quoted. I'm asking why should anyone on the left? Why is the text of the Constitution not sacred yet the ruling in Roe v Wade is? Shouldn't that ruling itself be subject to reinterpretation? Well, the medical procedure under discussion is generally avoidable, usually elective, and always involves the termination of a human life. Because religion informs ethics doesn't make those ethics invalid, and, it's a contradiction for a democratic society to deny civic participation on grounds of religious beliefs. All crimes are the result of making decisions (well, those apart from impairment, incompetence, or recklessness, anyway); it isn't obligatory for those opposed from the acts resulting to those decisions to organize the world so those decisions are never made. Free people are responsible for their own adherence to the law.
(As Paladin) Cum IS a baby because of my special fuzzy feelings inside. This is also the reason Christians give for believing in sky fairies, but I'll ignore that, and keep thinking I'm Atheist.
No, it isn't, and I made no claim that it is. Abortion does not involve cum, unless it's really, really preemptive. It is, at the very least, a living human organism.
I don't know if you're serious or just being stupid. But, I assume you have taken science classes. 1. a zygote (fertilized egg) is not human life 2. an electrical impulse is not human life 3. an embryo is not human life A pregnancy is not a human life. A human life is at the point in which the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb.
Is it alive? What species is it? You seem to know science better than me, so please answer these scientific questions. (1) I smother a seven month preemie in the natal intensive care unit, it's murder, right? (2) A mother terminates a near full-term fetus, hunky-dory, right? Unless you're willing to say no to (1) and yes to (2), you have to admit that some part of pregnancy does involve a human life.
How about a brown kid in a cage getting molested by an ICE guard? What trimester are they? (Jeopardy theme)
Is this baby now surviving, even on life support, outside the mother's womb? then yes, smothering that baby is murder. Termination of a near full-term "fetus" is called "birth". so ... , no, that's life, not death. Yes. The part where the fetus is able to survive outside the mother's womb.
Good. But you failed to answer my questions about the embryo. Dodge. I said terminate the fetus, not the pregnancy. But let me make it crystal clear: should elective abortion be permissible even for a near-term fetus? So, your statement Is disproved. At least some part of pregnancy involves a human life.
Dodge? How? There is no such thing as "late term abortion" except in the minds of rabid anti-choice advocates. There have been instances in which a pregnancy has been terminated after the 21st week when "lethal fetal abnormalities have been detected" (wikipedia). Other than that, it just isn't happening. You really need to stop listening to propaganda. It's possible you quoted my post prior to my edit - it wasn't until after I hit "post reply" that I realized I'd deleted more than I wanted to. However, I did add the caveat "A human life is at the point in which the fetus can survive outside the mother's womb."
Once it has enough brain activity to be measured, it's a human. Assuming the embryo is a human one, anyway.
