12/2    I shouldn't do this.  But I just can't help myself...
        I was accused in a now defunct thread of being a pro-life libertarian.
        In fact, I am a pro-abortion libertarian. The difference between me
        and the poster is that i'm capable of a shred of objectivity
        and of conceding an opponents point.  Roe v. wade is a archetypical
        example of "legislating from the bench".  Unless you really think the
        constitution makes mention of which trimester it is ok to kill a fetus
        in. -phuqm
        \_ it's funny how flame/troll/debate topics seem to flucutate
           on the motd.  I've seen people try to start abortion flame
           wars dozens of times without anyone even bothering to
           reply over the last few years, but now all of a sudden it's
           a hot button topic here.  doesn't anyone want to have a
           nice isreal/palestine flamewar?
        \_ The constitution does make it a capital crime to kill another
           human being.  This opens Pandora's Box as concerns the question
           of what constitutes a human being; whether the health of the
           mother is more vital than the health of the fetus; whether a
           woman can be coerced to bear to term a child she conceived
           through rape, incest, date-rape, or other violation; and whether a
           woman is obliged to bear to term a child that has been demonstrated
           to have genetic or terratogenic defects, life-threatening or
           no.  Roe v. Wade seeks to clarify the Constitution by interpreting
           it according to current ethical standards while taking into
           account recent social phenomena like Women's Lib and the Sexual
           Revolution.  This is the job of the Supreme Court: to wade in,
           when the Constitution is unclear, and take a stab at clarifying
           it.  If the Legislative Branch disagrees, it's free to draft
           Constitutional Amendments that clarify the Constitution as they
           perceive it. --erikred
                \_ Sorry, you have it backwards.  Roe was social engineering,
                   completely unfounded with no stare decisis.  Its laughable
                   how you divine the existence of a natural right to abortion
                   from the bill of rights, or that such a question necessitates
                   Federal authority.  Its a state issue, insofar as the
                   question can broached by government.  The role of the
                   Supreme Court is exactly NOT to wade into vaguely defined
                   question of social justice.  Leave it to the voters
                   and a legislature.  'Clarify it with current ethical
                   standards' - so when pedophilia and beastiality are in vogue
                   well have the Supreme Court to clarify it for us.  Whoopee!
                   \_ That's right, abortion is just like pedophelia and
                      bestiality. Anyone who wants legal abortions must first
                      defend legalizing animal abuse and sex with children.
                   \_ Thanks for the laughable assertions, but unless you're
                      willing to put forth a logical explanation for your
                      point of view, expect to be laughed at and then ignored.
                   \_ Law changes with society. If you cannot accept that, then
                      you can't even expect to get to step one in understanding.
                     \_ Here my logical explanation:  I can read the
                        Constitution and all of the ancillary documents.
                        That is the beauty of it, its so simply written all you
                        do is READ the damn thing.  Yes socials mores change,
                        that is why there are provisions for these things called
                        AMENDMENTS.  That is how you change the Constitution,
                        not by redendering your percevied view of justice
                        from a bench.  You elitist fucks think you are so
                        smart, that you need to save the populace from itself.
                           \_ protecting the rights of minorities is one of the
                              tenets of our democracy.  what gives you the right
                              to make laws about what people do with their own
                              body?
                              \_ you are missing the point.  I suggest that you
                                 are too stupid to engage in this conversation.
                                 \_ I suggest you missed my point. I responded
                                    to the "save the populace from itself"
                                    remark. I also suggest you are a shithead.
                           \_ Please learn to format your posts to 80 char
                              columns. But you are right, if this had been
                              decided by legislature instead of the courts
                              it would be much less contentious.
           \_ Nice.
           \_ That doesn't fit the black and white neocon world, babykiller!
           \_ where does the constitution ever talk about what crimes are
              capital crimes?
           \_ this is well reasoned but not correct.  The Constitution does
              NOT make it a capital crime to kill another person.  The
              Constitution does not make ANYTHING a "capital crime".  IIRC,
              The only "crimes" the constitution mentions by name are
              counterfeiting and treason.  The Constitution is not a body of
              laws for governing people.  It is a body of laws for governing
              GOVERNMENT.  It lays out who has what authority to do what
              and it does so in a pretty damn clear manner. (it is also
              pretty short, i recommend reading it.)  The basis
              for convicting murderers is in STATE laws (the penal code for
              murder in CA is 187 iirc).  The Supreme court has the
              authority to overturn unconstitutional laws; it does not have
              the (constitutional) authority to MAKE NEW ONES.  That is the
              role of the Legislative branches of the US and of the States.
              Roe V. Wade, suggested that it laws against abortion were
              unconstitutional as they violated the non-explicit "penumbra"
              of rights implied by the explicit stating of the bill-of-rights
              Now, this is already a bit of a stretch, but being a Libertine
              i'm all for it.  However, when it goes a step further and says
              "but a law which prohibits 3rd trimester abortions would be ok"
              it is no longer "clarifying the constitution by interpretation."
              It is legislating pure and simple.  It is saying women in the
              US can have an abortion up till 6 months and not after.   That
              is not its role. -phuqm
              \_ It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine if a law
                 is constitutional or not.  The Supreme Court decided in this
                 case that the current law was not consitutional.  The SC then
                 went on to describe a scenario in which a similar law would
                 be constitutional, thus providing a counterpoint to its
                 decision.  It did not make 3rd trimester abortions illegal,
                 and it did not enjoin the House and Senate to pass
                 legislation in this vein on pain of penalty.  How is this
                 legislating?  --erikred
        \_ objectivity is a farce
            \_ Thanks for the sophmoric philosophy lesson.  This is exactly
               the sophistry they are using in law schools today to teach a
               whole generation of law students that it is ok to rule without
               regard for what the law says, because, hell, who can know for
               SURE.  That a goal is not perfectaly attainable does not mean
               you should not attempt to get closer. -phuqm
        \_ is phuqm an alias?  can't seem to find this user.
           \_ fuck'em
           \_ yes. -phuqm@hotmail.com
            \_ then why bother signing your shit?  it's not like any of
               us are going to bother writing you at some anonymous
               hotmail account.
               \_ why does anyone bother? who cares?  it's just a
                  usenet dickhead ego thing.