Hillary: Kill the brown babies or you get no aid

[shagdrum]

Then you obviously misunderstood what I said.

I understood it fine. It is you who doesn't understand the original statement of mine you were responding to, nor do you seem to understand what a circular argument is.

Then is it your contention that the people do NOT have the right to decide what is law in this country?

That is what "decision" you were talking about? I thought you were talking about abortion.

Nearly every state has voted on abortion bans in recent elections. Tell me how many have banned abortion

No state can ban abortions per the Roe v. Wade and later SCOTUS decisions.

Either way, it is irrelevant to my point.

Your opinion you posted earlier is only provable or disprovable depending on when you believe life begins, and a negative proof fallacy.

So, it is not provable weather or not the Constitutional basis of the Roe v. Wade decision was rooted in equivocation and distortion of the Constitution?

Look up the idea of "substantive due process".

I am rejecting it because it sounds absurd the way you posted it.

Then maybe you should ask for clarification instead of jumping to wrong conclusions and accusing me of fallacies I am not making. There are good reasons for most everything I say, but I see no reason to waste expanding and explaining them to someone who is only interested in dismissing them, as you have done in the past.

 

[FIND]

I understood it fine. It is you who doesn't understand the original statement of mine you were responding to, nor do you seem to understand what a circular argument is.

No, you are missing the point. What I was trying to say is regardless of how things go, laws are based upon public norms and morality of the majority. There is always a minority that will feel morality is being dictated because they do not share the same values as whatever majority. To state that something cannot be law citing this reasoning is a circular argument.

That is what "decision" you were talking about? I thought you were talking about abortion.

I am, in a round about way. The public as a whole has the right to decide what their legal rights are. The government does not have the right to restrict those rights without just cause. Therefore, the government at any level does not have the right to restrict a person's legal rights to have an abortion performed.

No state can ban abortions per the Roe v. Wade and later SCOTUS decisions.

Either way, it is irrelevant to my point.

Yes they can. In the second trimester, the state may make abortion laws "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and in the third, they may restrict or proscribe abortion "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother". Section VII of the Roe vs Wade decision further outlines more justifications to allowing the state to make laws restricting abortions, such as, protecting prenatal life, discouraging women from engaging in illicit sexual conduct, and reducing access to a risky medical procedure. A state can ban abortion as long as there is an accepted definition by the state of the start of life occurring prior to birth.

So, it is not provable weather or not the Constitutional basis of the Roe v. Wade decision was rooted in equivocation and distortion of the Constitution?

Look up the idea of "substantive due process".

Roe v. Wade is rooted in the idea of our constitutional right to privacy. I am aware of what substantive due process is. How are you suggesting this is relevant to this discussion? The problem here is you are asking for specific wording in the constitution guaranteeing a right for or against abortion, and there is no specific wording. The right to abortion then must be balanced against the accepted views of the start of life and a mother's right to privacy.

Then maybe you should ask for clarification instead of jumping to wrong conclusions and accusing me of fallacies I am not making. There are good reasons for most everything I say, but I see no reason to waste expanding and explaining them to someone who is only interested in dismissing them, as you have done in the past.

I did not outwardly dismiss anything early on. I simply stated that that was your opinion, and that I did not share it. You then followed through to state that we can only have the discussion if I accept that premise. I responded that I understood and accepted that premise, just did not share your opinion. Then you offhandedly said I do not understand your argument. This is the only thing you stated that I dismissed without further justification.

Your argument to this point is rooted in your opinion that Roe V. Wade is based upon an equivocation that distorts the constitution. If you provide no reasoning behind this opinion, it is nothing more than an opinion, and I cannot fully appreciate your argument. Therefore I am forced to dismiss your opinion as nothing more than opinion without substance or merit until such time as you can provide your reasoning. Otherwise, any dismissal I have made in the past of things you have said are rooted in whatever reasoning I gave you at the time, or my unwillingness to re-justify arguments and historically accepted facts that have been satisfactorily decided in the past by those closer to the events, without clear and convincing evidence that addresses all factors in those decisions and that those decisions are wrong. If you want people to agree with you, then I would suggest a field other than politics, because I am willing to bet there is next to nothing in politics you can say that someone at some point will not dismiss.

 

[shagdrum]

No, you are missing the point. What I was trying to say is regardless of how things go, laws are based upon public norms and morality of the majority.

I understood perfectly well what you said. I just didn't agree with it.

All laws are based in morality, but not all laws are based in morality that has become the norm by the majority accepting those morals. Not all laws come from the ground, up. Some (like the health care bill) come from the top, down as a means of imposing a certain moral order on society that most of society doesn't agree with.

To state that something cannot be law citing this reasoning is a circular argument.

And there is where you misunderstand my argument. I am not stating that something can not be a law, but that something should not become law if it imposes a moral order from the top, down.

I am, in a round about way. The public as a whole has the right to decide what their legal rights are.

A society can, to a certain extent, decide what their legal rights are. That is a very important distinction.

However, you can not simply assert that something is a right. A society would need to codify that right in law for the government to recognize it.

The government does not have the right to restrict those rights without just cause.

No, the government is only restricted from infringing on certain rights and confined to actions within a very strict sphere.

If something is not listed in the constitution, it is not a de facto right as you seem to be implying. You need to understand the nature of Rights and the function of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You don't seem to be drawing those connections.

Roe v. Wade is rooted in the idea of our constitutional right to privacy. I am aware of what substantive due process is. How are you suggesting this is relevant to this discussion?

Apparently you are not familiar with the Roe v. Wade decision. It's Constitutional "justification" come by way of "substantive due process".

There is no broad "right to privacy" in the Constitution.

The problem here is you are asking for specific wording in the constitution guaranteeing a right for or against abortion, and there is no specific wording.

Exactly!

However, you seem to be assuming that, because the Constitution is silent on abortion, there is a de facto right to an abortion and that is not the case.

You are painting with a real broad brush and missing a lot of specifics and nuance in your points.

You then followed through to state that we can only have the discussion if I accept that premise.

In order to understand a position, you have to accept the premises it rests on, even if only for the sake of argument. If you can't do that, then you are not intellectually capable of understanding that position.

Intellectual honesty (not to mention basic civility in discussion) demands that you accept those premises (even if only for the sake of argument) in order to understand the argument. Otherwise, you cannot grasp the rationale behind the position.

If you can't look past your own viewpoint to approach the issue from a different viewpoint, then this entire discussion is a waste of time.

 

[FIND]

All laws are based in morality, but not all laws are based in morality that has become the norm by the majority accepting those morals. Not all laws come from the ground, up. Some (like the health care bill) come from the top, down as a means of imposing a certain moral order on society that most of society doesn't agree with.

This is where we run into the problem of a circular argument. The majority voted for the officials that crafted health care legislation. This health care bill was part of Obama's campaign even. The fact that there was not a vote by the public on this and every issue does not mean that laws are coming from the top down. It means that the top is representing the majority. The majority may have changed its mind since, but that is irrelevant. The fact that you specifically did not support this, yet your government representatives may have is also irrelevant, as they were representing the majority in your area. You know full well that a pure democracy is impossible, especially given complex issues such as this. Like it or not, government was acting as a representative of the majority. Persons in government with a specific belief only become a majority if the majority of people elect those persons. People generally only elect politicians that share their beliefs. Unless you are arguing that government acts against public desire, then your argument lacks merit. Politicians in general, represent the majority of the area in which they were represented to elect. Granted, there are some exceptions to that, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.

A society can, to a certain extent, decide what their legal rights are. That is a very important distinction.

However, you can not simply assert that something is a right. A society would need to codify that right in law for the government to recognize it.

Doesn't this just fly in the face of libertarian beliefs however? On the one hand you would assert that the government cannot restrict the behavior of individuals unless it is specifically given that power, but on the other hand you are saying that people do not have the right to behave in a certain way without specific legislation from the government. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is my interpretation of what you have just said.

Apparently you are not familiar with the Roe v. Wade decision. It's Constitutional "justification" come by way of "substantive due process".

There is no broad "right to privacy" specifically guaranteed in the Constitution.

No, there is no guarantee of the right of privacy per se in the constitution, but, thankfully we can infer that right based upon others and the spirit of the constitution, which we can infer specifically from the 4th amendment in particular. We also have the 14th amendment, which states specifically, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore we know the government does not have the power to restrict the actions of the people without due process of the law.

Now, more on Roe vs Wade. SCOTUS held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. This right to privacy is articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut. Through substantive due process, the states cannot overturn this decision.

Exactly!

However, you seem to be assuming that, because the Constitution is silent on abortion, there is a de facto right to an abortion and that is not the case.

You are painting with a real broad brush and missing a lot of specifics and nuance in your points.

See above.

In order to understand a position, you have to accept the premises it rests on, even if only for the sake of argument. If you can't do that, then you are not intellectually capable of understanding that position.

Intellectual honesty (not to mention basic civility in discussion) demands that you accept those premises (even if only for the sake of argument) in order to understand the argument. Otherwise, you cannot grasp the rationale behind the position.

If you can't look past your own viewpoint to approach the issue from a different viewpoint, then this entire discussion is a waste of time.

I told you, I accepted the premises of your argument. I just do not share your opinion, and your argument is weak at best if you are not citing anything but an unjustified opinion. If you want to say that SCOTUS

 

[shagdrum]

This is where we run into the problem of a circular argument.

Yet you cannot show anything circular about it. In fact, the reply you are making seems circular in nature because it only makes sense if you assume that laws passed by the legislature represent the will of the people; a premise which is also the conclusion of your argument. That argument rejects the notion that elected officials can govern against the will of the people. That argument is shown to be absurd by the fact that the majority were (and are) unquestionably against this bill and that the bill in question was not what Obama campaigned on and not what was sold to the American people. To conclude that this health care bill reflects the will of the people is to ignore reality.

Doesn't this just fly in the face of libertarian beliefs however?

It depends on which form of libertarianism you are talking about. That is why I attached the Federalist aspect to it. Constitutional libertarians would pretty much line up along the lines of the position being conveyed.

No, there is no guarantee of the right of privacy per se in the constitution, but, thankfully we can infer that right based upon others and the spirit of the constitution, which we can infer specifically from the 4th amendment in particular. We also have the 14th amendment, which states specifically, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Therefore we know the government does not have the power to restrict the actions of the people without due process of the law.

The lines you are pulling from the Constitution do not support your conclusion. The federal government cannot infringe on specific freedoms without due process of law. If the government were prevented from infringing on any and all freedoms that could ever be imagined, then there would be no reason to explicitly list freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon; there would be no reason for the Bill of Rights.

There is no "implied" broad right to privacy in the Constitution. That claim is rooted in equivocation aimed at distorting the Constitution. Which brings me to the next point...

Now, more on Roe vs Wade. SCOTUS held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. This right to privacy is articulated in Griswold v. Connecticut. Through substantive due process, the states cannot overturn this decision.

And there you have that equivocation of due process. Basically, "substantive due process" is a legal fiction which creates two conceptions of due process; the clear and obvious concept of due process as procedural due process (which is rather redundant), and the lie/redefinition of due process as "substantive" due process.

I have heard of a law professor saying that substantive due process is an empty glass into which you can pour your own ideas and agenda.

There is no Textual/Constitutional basis for "substantive" due process. It is, as I pointed out earlier and equivocation that distorts the Constitution toward political ends.

The Roe v. Wade decision's Constitutional "justification" is rooted in the equivocation that is "substantive" due process; it is rooted in a lie.

 

[FIND]

What do you mean I can find nothing circular about that? Your reasoning is that since we use morals to legislate morality, we cannot pass legislation, however morals are inseparable from law therefore we must use them when crafting law.

That argument is shown to be absurd by the fact that the majority were (and are) unquestionably against this bill and that the bill in question was not what Obama campaigned on and not what was sold to the American people.

I would LOVE to see you prove the bolded piece, and please no conservative blogs, I'll take facts please. Granted, the health care bill is not exactly what Obama planned, as it was changed by congress quite a bit. But then again, they were representing the majority, and the majority in this country wanted health care reform. Plus MOST of the bill is part of exactly what the majority wanted from Obama, they just didn't get EVERYTHING they wanted. To charge that government acts against the will of the people is a flimsy allegation at best, and better left to conspiracy theorists than someone who claims to be a political scholar.

The lines you are pulling from the Constitution do not support your conclusion. The federal government cannot infringe on specific freedoms without due process of law. If the government were prevented from infringing on any and all freedoms that could ever be imagined, then there would be no reason to explicitly list freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon; there would be no reason for the Bill of Rights.

There is no "implied" broad right to privacy in the Constitution. That claim is rooted in equivocation aimed at distorting the Constitution. Which brings me to the next point...

An opinion not supported by decades of SCOTUS decisions or by the will of the majority in the US. Plus, they are infringing upon a specific freedom if they make legislation to prohibit abortion, therefore they must go through due process of the law to infringe upon this freedom. Roe v. Wade CLEARLY states the conditions under which a state may infringe upon the freedom to practice abortion, and states constantly vote on whether or not to ban abortion. How many states ban abortion?

And there you have that equivocation of due process. Basically, "substantive due process" is a legal fiction which creates two conceptions of due process; the clear and obvious concept of due process as procedural due process (which is rather redundant), and the lie/redefinition of due process as "substantive" due process.

I have heard of a law professor saying that substantive due process is an empty glass into which you can pour your own ideas and agenda.

There is no Textual/Constitutional basis for "substantive" due process. It is, as I pointed out earlier and equivocation that distorts the Constitution toward political ends.

The Roe v. Wade decision's Constitutional "justification" is rooted in the equivocation that is "substantive" due process; it is rooted in a lie.

once again opinion, and once again, you are ignoring the fact that the RIGHT TO PRIVACY is the foundation of the Roe v. Wade decision.

You are basing your argument on the opinion that the constitution should be interpreted differently in this case than in almost any other instance.


If the government cannot restrict a behavior, then the people are free to practice that behavior correct?

Where does the government get the right to restrict abortion? Your argument seems to be that people do not have the right to practice abortion guaranteed to them, but where is the right to restrict abortion given to the government?

Also, your entire argument is still tending towards saying that the right to have an abortion is not specifically guaranteed in the constitution, therefore the government has the right to restrict that behavior. This is just not true. Unless the government passes specific legislation with proper justification for the government to infringe upon a specific behavior or freedom, the government may not infringe upon this behavior. Simple as that. To take this argument in the direction you are going would imply near infinite power for the government over the lives of the people and that the people only have the specific rights granted them in the constitution. That sounds an awful lot like totalitarianism to me.... maybe fascism.... maybe who cares, it is stupid.

 

[shagdrum]

Your reasoning is that since we use morals to legislate morality, we cannot pass legislation, however morals are inseparable from law therefore we must use them when crafting law.

Where are you getting that?

You seem pretty quick to write off opposing view as mere "opinion" in spite of any logical arguments and/or evidence in support of those views. If it is mere opinion, why waste time confronting it?

 

[FIND]

Where are you getting that?

From your posts

You seem pretty quick to write off opposing view as mere "opinion" in spite of any logical arguments and/or evidence in support of those views. If it is mere opinion, why waste time confronting it?

Then where is the EVIDENCE or logical argument???? I confront your opinions to demonstrate why I do not share them, and why they are incorrect.