Abortion

[dahermit]

for instance, there is no law that says that a woman has the right to an abortion. [\QUOTE]

And strangely enough, a few posts back you made the claim that it was law. Do you even know what you are arguing or as I suspect, are you just making it up as you go?

And strangely enough, I did not state that it was the law,(although the court ruling gave it the weight of the law) it was someone else. What I was attempting to get through to you is, that semantics do not change anything. For instance, even though a Supreme Court ruling is not technically the same as a law, its effect is the same. Also, "law" can come into existence by precedent as in Marburry vs. Madison which, although it had nothing to do with establishing the Supreme Court as the legitimate entity entitled to interpret the Constitution, established by precedent that it was. No law was ever passed that gave them that right. And nowhere in the constitution does it state that the Court is so entitled. Nevertheless, your objections notwithstanding, "law"(or what ever you may wish to call it), does not always come about by legislative process.

 

[Dr.Who]

"Actually", it is the Supreme Court that decides of a law is unconstitutional or not. Also, no "law" has ever been "made part of the constitution", it is amendments that become part of the constitution.

When the legislative branch of government writes an amendment and inserts it into the highest law of the land they have made a law. And amendment is a law.

The word constitution comes from the Latin and means - law.

 

[Dr.Who]

And strangely enough, I did not state that it was the law,(although the court ruling gave it the weight of the law) it was someone else. What I was attempting to get through to you is, that semantics do not change anything. For instance, even though a Supreme Court ruling is not technically the same as a law, its effect is the same. Also, "law" can come into existence by precedent as in Marburry vs. Madison which, although it had nothing to do with establishing the Supreme Court as the legitimate entity entitled to interpret the Constitution, established by precedent that it was. No law was ever passed that gave them that right. And nowhere in the constitution does it state that the Court is so entitled. Nevertheless, your objections notwithstanding, "law"(or what ever you may wish to call it), does not always come about by legislative process.

You said:

"It's decisions become the current law which can and are cited in lower courts as the law."

 

[Dr.Who]

It is a sad statement of our educational system when adults don't recognize that there is no difference between "actual law" and "law". And that the difference between a law, for instance, there is no law that says that a woman has the right to an abortion. Nevertheless, since Roe vs. Wade, it is a moot point because everyone (person seeking abortions, and doctors who preform them), assumes that it gives that right to women. So, what practical/significant effect does it have on abortions?
The answer is none, your semantic self-gratification notwithstanding.

You are right that R v W does not give that right. Rights do not come from courts they are only recognized by courts. The people who assume the right comes from R v W are wrong. Rights exist first and then are upheld.

 

[dahermit]

You are right that R v W does not give that right. Rights do not come from courts they are only recognized by courts. The people who assume the right comes from R v W are wrong. Rights exist first and then are upheld.

Yeah, I know...They come from God.

 

[dahermit]

You said:

"It's decisions become the current law which can and are cited in lower courts as the law."

Whoops, I did say that. In a sense it does become the law. The rulings and precedents are cited as needed. They are regarded as valid alternative to legislated law. They were never passed by congress, but they carry the weight (viewed as legitimate) of law. What is it you do not understand about that? I thought that it was only Palerider's fragile ego that resorts to semantics so he would not appear to lose on any slight point.

 

[palerider]

I thought that it was only Palerider's fragile ego that resorts to semantics so he would not appear to lose on any slight point.

If you can not make a valid, rational argument, I will point out your errors, and I don't play semantics. There is no need as the facts support my arguments. If the best you can do is to say that abortion is legal, then you have no argument at all and when roe is overturned you must logically accept the decision and argue the anti abortion postiion because at that time abortion will be illegal.

 

[dahermit]

When the legislative branch of government writes an amendment and inserts it into the highest law of the land they have made a law. And amendment is a law.

The word constitution comes from the Latin and means - law.

No, it is an amendment to the constitution. Just as you and Pale like to play semantics.

Main Entry: law !lo
Pronunciation: \ ˈlȯ \
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse lǫg law; akin to Old English licgan to lie - More at - lie
Date: before 12th century

 

[dahermit]

If you can not make a valid, rational argument, I will point out your errors, and I don't play semantics. There is no need as the facts support my arguments.

I am so happy that you do not play semantics.

If the best you can do is to say that abortion is legal, then you have no argument at all and when roe is overturned you must logically accept the decision

I would have to accept the fact that it was overturned because it would be the law.

and argue the anti abortion postiion because at that time abortion will be illegal.

No, everyone is free to descent.

"...and argue the anti abortion postiion ...", now there is quite a jump of logic.

 

[palerider]

"...and argue the anti abortion postiion ...", now there is quite a jump of logic.

Since you can't rationally defend the position when abortion is legal, why do you suppose you could defend it if abortion became illegal?

 

[Dr.Who]

Yeah, I know...They come from God.

Whether they came from God or not does not matter in the legal sense because our founding documents say they came not from government.

 

[Dr.Who]

Whoops, I did say that. In a sense it does become the law. The rulings and precedents are cited as needed. They are regarded as valid alternative to legislated law. They were never passed by congress, but they carry the weight (viewed as legitimate) of law. What is it you do not understand about that? I thought that it was only Palerider's fragile ego that resorts to semantics so he would not appear to lose on any slight point.

You are a brave man. Good job and well done.

The rulings that courts make, while not law, do carry weight, I agree.

In regards to R v W the courts have ruled that certain laws against abortion cannot be made. That carries weight. The court was wrong but what it said makes a difference. I understood all of that all along. I just wanted to be clear that the court did not make a law and that if congress can find a way to make a law that sticks it can.

 

[dahermit]

Since you can't rationally defend the position when abortion is legal, why do you suppose you could defend it if abortion became illegal?

You missed the point. I would not argue against abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned because I have no obligation to.

 

[dahermit]

Whether they came from God or not does not matter in the legal sense because our founding documents say they came not from government.

And of course that is nonsense. In our culture it is popular to state such things but in the context of history and world governments it is not true. For instance, consider freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc. in the context of 30 years ago Communist China, Nazi Germany. Such rights did not exist because those governments did not grant them. American founding fathers had a penchant for idealistic speech.

 

[palerider]

And of course that is nonsense. In our culture it is popular to state such things but in the context of history and world governments it is not true. For instance, consider freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc. in the context of 30 years ago Communist China, Nazi Germany. Such rights did not exist because those governments did not grant them. American founding fathers had a penchant for idealistic speech.

Of course they existed. Some governments chose not to recognize or protect them, but they existed none the less. Unborns have the same claim to a right to live as you. Our government presently choosed not to recognize it, but that does not mean that the right does not exist.