Below are criticisms of Roe from other supporters of legal abortion.

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun

“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. … Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” — Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor, former U.S. Solicitor General

“[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” — Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor

“Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor

The Roe decision is based on the ''concept of personal liberty'' in the 14th Amendment, which forbids a state to ''deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'' This right of privacy, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.''

In short, the decision deprives a person of life and liberty that is guaranteed by the same constitution used by the court to defend the decision.

_________________

One of the little games I came up with when I was banned and browsing the forum was looking at thread titles / original posts...and then reading only the last page of its respective thread...and trying to come up with the how and why a discussion devolved into that current subject.

I was always wrong.

This thread is a great example of that.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.

So in summary of the last 2 pages, Seacrest you are a strong supporter of the government not interfering in the rights and freedoms of individuals. Unless the right being infringed upon is something you agree with. In which case have the Feds there with cuffs if a woman wants to make up her own mind. Is that about right?

Thanks, Seacrest.

But I kind of wanted to know your opinion on the matter. We could find quotes anywhere, as you did on this website:

http://prolifemn.blogspot.com/2011/06/a ... roe-v.html

You copied and pasted all that from this website, which is fine, but isn't the point of posting on a message board to express your own opinion?

I will also say that none of the quotes you posted actually say why the law is bad. They just say that it is bad and that it is an example of consitutional overreaching. I'm sure if you gave us your own opinion, it would help clear up why they think this way.

_________________

They should. I vote for putting that shit in the drinking water.

_________________

What Seacrest is forgetting is that you can't be against abortion AND against birth control. If you truly want there to be no abortion, you should be supportive of every birth control method under the sun.

your whole existence and everything you say should be in regards to what god believes, seacrest. that's your obligation. so inherently, you bring up god every time you post something anything in regards to morals. i thought that was implied.

But if you believe that all intercourse is to be had for the purpose of making a baby, as the Roman Catholic Church does, then there's no use for either.

_________________

The question I would ask is how can we fail to recognize the fetus as an individual- a person, if you will- for purposes of legal abortion, while doing so in other instances, e.g., when a pregnant mother is murdered.

_________________
General Jim wears Fort Bragg down... to get it!

Day 1 Catholcisim Class, DePaul University
Religion was invented by man to explain natural events of which he couldn't.
"So is class over?" ME

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Well, I mean...you definitely can. Both are "unnatural" in the eyes of some. And people are allowed to be against things they believe are immoral.

Not that I agree with Seacrest.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.

In a similar argument, can a mother take a life insurance policy out on a fetus?

_________________

Only if the feetus has diabeetus.

_________________

I have never watched this show, i don't care for hillbilly shows. but these guys know EXACTLY what they are doing. this was a well thought out plan to get their contract severed so they can go fully independent . these guys are all college educated, they only grew those beards for marketing . these boys may look. like ignorant hayseeds but they are actually pretty slick n marketing geniuses .

_________________

That's not what the Roman Catholic Church believes.

_________________

My opinion is in the last two lines of the post.

_________________

Good point. They aren't even "good ole boy" rednecks. All for show.

You thought incorrectly Z.

And this discussion was about the Constitution. And folks using it to suit a purpose it was not designed for. Just like what happened in Roe v Wade.

You can stop projecting your issues with those you struggled with growing up, on me. Or not.

_________________

I think it is just that they dont believe you should use anything but the natural method to avoid pregnancy. For my pre-marriage class I had to listen to the priest talk about fucking on the proper cycles to not get pregnant.


It still haunts me...

_________________

Don't look now...

_________________

_________________

The medical perils of most birth control falls on women alone.

I'm thankful my wife wasn't going to have any of that.

_________________

yawn...

the word "unconstitutional" has been thrown around so much lately it's practically lost all its meaning.

#idontreallyunderstandit

_________________

Nope!

Last year they only had a 1 year deal, as I think is standard in most of these reality show deals because the star can fade fast.

Last years final show was AE's highest rated show ever, so came the contract squabbles. Being not under contract, they cut a bunch of deals with the Outdoors channel and their advertisers for about month, you saw Phil, Willie, etc on every show and pushing every product around.

Then AE got scared and locked them up in a hurry.

This controversy made them even more popular and they cant wait for this 1 year deal to end, so they can go back to the table.

I agree they are far from naive hillbillys, but how great would it be for any employ to go negotiate a new deal, while doing shows on another network.

I would guess the only thing AE might own is the name 'Duck Dynasty"...and the Rolls Royce in the opening.

Essentially, The Roberstons dont need AE. They could pack the whole show up and call it "The Robertsons" or "Duck commander"

The one thing people rarely realize about most of these shows, is that they have been trying to get them on the air for years. Deadliest, Pawn Stars, Pickers, duck Dynasty. Mike, Rick, Willie...have all been making demos and tape for years for TV shows about them. Even ATZ lee, his father was making Film about them int he 60s for others to watch.

Someone didnt just stumble upon these guys....

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

Admittance is the first step. At some point the rest of us will help you in your journey. But for now just keep on thinking the world revolves around your beliefs.

Your two posts next to each other is a study in irony and hilarity.

I know you have no idea what you did to yourself in the same thread here.

Merry Christmas B Mc. You are like a gift that never ceases to give.

_________________

And this is relevant to this discussion how?!?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Hey look. Seacrest is once again getting pinned in a corner because people are daring to day "I could give a fuck about what your Catholic school taught you." So it's time to try and change the focus. Shock factor...... ZERO.