And yeah, feminazis call an abortion a "prodedure", "terminate a pregnancy" for kill a fetus,etc etc etc. You can suck in all the feminist idiot-level slogans and brainwashing on this issue you want, but don't throw it up to me as logical debate.
Also, don't give me any crapola about the "proper way" - the Roe edict was a wholesale abrogation of the constitution by a senile justice who comprehended neither the constitution nor ethics nor medical science nor anything else related to the issue. Abortionists starting with Blackmun have made a mockery of the supreme law on this issue, and you DARE to lecture me about the "proper way"???
You are AMUSED in the same way the village idiot is amused - by not comprehending anything and sitting there staring into the middle distance. And now that the USSC is an unelected legislature, yer damn right conservatives should get in there and legislate.
The above-quoted post seems like a typical Rick response right there. Typical in the way a simple villiage idiot, comprehending very little, would respond.
You, at least tacitly, supported terrorists in your earlier posts. Granted, you clarified your position by stating that violence leads to violence. Fine. But the way you posted your inital responses in this thread could easily have been taken for cheering that people would blow up women's clinics and kill doctors. Then later you come back with the statement, "And there will never be a time when the abortionists cashing in on this bloody trade don't have to look over their shoulder and wonder if they're next." You have the right to support terrorism, though I don't know how you can square that with being an anti-choice fanatic.
Moving on, you first asked me if abortion is "simply wrong," to which I responded, "No."
Keeping up so far? Or do I need to slow down?
In my view, abortion is not simply wrong. Not categorically, in any case.
Then you asked me why terrorizing and killing doctors was, in my view, more wrong than performing abortions. To this, I responded that one is "simply terrorism agains people and property, while the latter is, as stated above, not wrong."
Still on board?
At that point, I'm not sure if you were ducking my response or merely trying to have me clarify, but you stated that the issue was morality, not legality. Well, I appreciated your attempt at clarifying if my response was confusing, but thought the issue and my response was pretty clear. Killing doctors in the manner discussed in this thread is terrorism against LIVING people and property, while abortion is, in fact a ""prodedure" used to "terminate a pregnancy."
Now, if you would like to debate the substance of whether or not terrorism against property and living people is more wrong than a ""prodedure" used to "terminate a pregnancy," I'm all for it.
Next, you moved on to
Roe. Your argument here, as expressed in this thread anyways, is that "
Roe is bad." Fine. I might even agree with you that, as far as a reasoned opinion based on prior law is concerned,
Roe is lacking support in some areas.
You have not pointed out exactly how
Roe is bad.
There something not quite right with people, who usually call themselves conservatives, that cry out against "activist judges," and then, a sentence or two later, advocate for judicial activism. If your position is that judicial activism is OK, then I respect that a little more (ignoring the fact that a self-proclaimed conservative would advocate for the government restricing individual liberty).
Two areas of law (among others) are, currently, well settled: 1) Judicial review; and 2) the right to abortion. The first was established by
Marbury while the second was established, on the federal level, by
Roe and reaffirmed by
Casey(plurality).
Stare decisis is also a well recognized staple of English and American jurisprudence.
These are non-issues if you have no problem with judicial activism. However, if you do have a problem with judicial activism, there is a proceedure set out in the Federal Constitution to override a constitutional decision of the United States Supreme Court. That is: amending the Constitution.
Still with me?
Now, on the one hand, you riled against J. Blackmun's opinion in
Roe (an opinion that garnered a majority, unless I'm mistaken)(with little more than vague thoughts on the matter, at least as expressed in this thread), while on the other you claim that the conservatives should legislate from the bench.
So, are you saying that it is OK to legislate from the bench or not? When exactly does judicial activism make "a mockery of the supreme law?" Is it only OK to legislate from the bench concerning issues that YOU feel were wrongly decided in the past? Or issues you feel strongly about? Does it matter if the issue has already been revisited? Or does it have to be revisited by a Court packed full of "conservatives"? How full of conservatives exactly? Can any republican appointed justices be considered "conservative," or only the ones appointed by those special conservative presidents?
If you want to debate these issues, fine. But your comments responding to my above posts show very little thought on your part, which is, of course, to be expected.
Rick, your 'village idiot' comments (and anything like them) need to stop immediately, or you will no longer post on this thread. drb14, please don't respond to him in kind.