User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 85

  1. #61
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyAnnaJoan View Post
    This is worded funny. How can a fetus, even if past 24 weeks, not be dependent on the mother's womb? I think what you mean is, rather, that even if aborted, the fetus or baby would still be able to survive and breath and eat. Thus the reason it is illegal to abort past a certain date.
    I'm referring to the point where the fetus can survive outside the womb.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  2. #62
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    But, that's just it. Abortion rights aren't determined democratically, but rather by 9 unelected judges.

    Or maybe more exactly one unelected judge who is an egotistical tool.
    Blame elected representatives for the dropping the ball there. If they did their job, judges wouldn't have to intervene.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #63
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I think Beefeaters point is that accountable legislatures (and Constitutions, if applicable) are supposed to determine laws, not the arbitrary judgements of effectively unaccountable judges. And its individual rights combined with equality under the law that are important, not 'minority rights' per se.
    Well said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    I'm not very educated with regard to the legal system, particularly in the states, but I thought the point was that these judges can be somewhat unbiased (certainly relative to congressmen etc) since they don't have to fish for public approval to be reelected every term. They can go purely by what they feel is right, in a perfect scenario.

    Like any human system it has its flaws, but it makes sense to me.
    The key is not bias, but accountability. Everyone is bias and that can't be avoided, but with a system of checks and balances you can at least limit the ability of powerful people to establish their biases as law when those biases don't represent the will of "the people."

    At the founding there was a presumption that the Supreme Court would be the weakest branch of the government and thus would need few checks on their power.
    The founders were wrong... or at least the federalists were.

    Parliamentary systems don't seem to be as concerned with checks and balances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I agree that it hasn't been explicitly codified, but it is the practical effect of the current law.
    Right, by not making a decision they have made a decision. But, the reasoning (or lack thereof) is important and part of the law.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  4. #64
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Blame elected representatives for the dropping the ball there. If they did their job, judges wouldn't have to intervene.
    What are you talking about?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  5. #65
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    What are you talking about?
    You're complaining that judges are responsible for the current abortion law, not elected representatives.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  6. #66
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Blame elected representatives for the dropping the ball there. If they did their job, judges wouldn't have to intervene.
    How did they drop the ball, if the laws they made (or failed to make) reflected the will of their constituents? I don't see a problem with the issue being contested until a de-facto consensus arises (in most European countries, the compromise time limit for abortions is about three months, incidentally).

  7. #67
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    The key is not bias, but accountability. Everyone is bias and that can't be avoided, but with a system of checks and balances you can at least limit the ability of powerful people to establish their biases as law when those biases don't represent the will of "the people."

    At the founding there was a presumption that the Supreme Court would be the weakest branch of the government and thus would need few checks on their power.
    The founders were wrong... or at least the federalists were.

    Parliamentary systems don't seem to be as concerned with checks and balances.
    I would tend to agree with you, in theory. I'm curious what kind of checks and balances you would propose, though. Specifically, how do you tailor them to make the judges as objective and fair as possible, serving the needs of the majority but also upholding the needs of various minorities when possible/fair/important/etc to do so. It's a difficult task, to say the least.
    -end of thread-

  8. #68
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    I'm not very educated with regard to the legal system, particularly in the states, but I thought the point was that these judges can be somewhat unbiased (certainly relative to congressmen etc) since they don't have to fish for public approval to be reelected every term. They can go purely by what they feel is right, in a perfect scenario.

    Minority rights are just part of individual rights. Majority rights are obviously just as important. I'm talking about cases like gay marriage, where despite the wild cries of "destroys the family waaaaaah", the majority doesn't lose any rights by granting a minority equal rights. Or rights for racial minorities. etc.
    Everyone is biased; a judicial decision is arbitrary when its made outside the parameters of statutory and (especially) Constitutional law.

    'Granting' minorities equal rights is not a matter of minority versus majority rights, its a matter of equal protection of individual rights under the law; my point is that only individuals, not identity-groups, have rights (and while I personally support gay marriage, its much more of a gray area, and I do not think its a matter that should be up to the judiciary, but that's another debate).

  9. #69
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I'm referring to the point where the fetus can survive outside the womb.
    That's a moving target. The ability of modern medicine to save premature babies has already overtaken the later stages of legality in late-term abortion in some jurisdictions. It's quite possible now to have a prematurely born living infant (i.e. a real person) in a neo-natal ICU, while on another floor in the same hospital a fetal non-person, conceived on the same day, is being aborted. The difference between the two cases is the mother's decision.

    Curious, isn't it?

  10. #70
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Yes, that particular target is more difficult to "nail down" than the usual ones, with medical technology constantly improving.

    One day we will probably develop the ability to culture a fetus outside the mother from conception to birth (we already have conception-implantation and preemie-birth convered, it's just the uterus/placenta part that's hard to simulate). That'll make the question even more interesting.

    I'd be more in favour of a specific developmental timepoint rather than "survivability", personally.
    -end of thread-

Similar Threads

  1. Slovenia: "special brigade" commander charged with murder during "Ten Day War"
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-18-2016, 04:57 PM
  2. Student Charged With Felony Over Science Experiment
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 07:54 AM
  3. Underreported trial of abortion doctor
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 04-16-2013, 02:09 PM
  4. Scientists charged with manslaughter....
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-13-2011, 02:00 PM
  5. Anti-Domestic Violence Lobbyist Charged with Killing Husband
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-05-2010, 12:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO