In response to:

Verilli Not Administration's Worst Lawyer After All

Dr_Zinj Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:14 AM
Point of clarification: Barack H. Obama was never a law professor. He may have "taught" classes on law, but that does not make him a professor. Roe v Wade is a poor ruling. It was too restrictive in it's focus, being solely about abortion as a right to privacy. It should have been both a general right to privacy, and a right to self determination regarding one's own body. (Which would have had major ramifications for helathcare as well as end of life decisions.)
JohnHanson Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 10:08 AM
Medically, an unborn baby has a different "body" than that of the mother. More generally, the Supreme Court is not authorized to create new "rights." The specific right of privacy that exists in the Constitution relates to the right of the people to be protected in their homes from unreasonable searches and seizures. It says nothing about any right to cut one's unborn child up in little pieces.
badgerpat Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:24 AM
Roe v Wade is a poor ruling in that acknowledged that self determination and right to provacy are both irrelevant in this case, since there are two human beings involved, not one. It should have acknowledged that this was actually a Right To Life case, and should have found in favor of Wade. Further, Roe v Wade was, as admitted in the majority opinion, based on the science available at the time. Science which has since been proven to be quite incomplete and inaccurate. The majority opinion actually acknowledged that the findings of Roe v Wade would be invalidated if science later proved the Courts assumptions to be inaccurate (as it has).
badgerpat Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:25 AM
Should be "Roe v Wade is a poor ruling in that it did not ackowledge that .... privacy..."
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:21 AM
I know of no woman who enjoys, or even wants an abortion. I know of many women that for economic, mental health, physical health, or complete ineptitude reasons NEED an abortion.

An abortion kills something. That's not in dispute. The question is, what makes us human? It's not DNA, it's not form; it's a level of mental ability surpassing that of any other living creature. That ability doesn't exist until well after birth. And that ability doesn't spring full fledged at the same point in time. It's like a flickering light buld that is gradually fed more power until it illuminates. A bulb without power isn't a lightbulb; it's a shard of glass and bits of metal. So too a fetus isn't a human yet; that requires a year or more of...
Dr_Zinj Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:22 AM
An abortion kills something. That's not in dispute. The question is, what makes us human? It's not DNA, it's not form; it's a level of mental ability surpassing that of any other living creature. That ability doesn't exist until well after birth. And that ability doesn't spring full fledged at the same point in time. It's like a flickering light buld that is gradually fed more power until it illuminates. A bulb without power isn't a lightbulb; it's a shard of glass and bits of metal. So too a fetus isn't a human yet; that requires a year or more of caring, loving, nurturing to turn on the light of human reasoning.
badgerpat Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:31 AM
And again you post this nonsensical position. "A bulb without power isn't a lightbulb?" Are you a complete moron? Of course it's still a lightbulb! Not even your fellow liberals will be convinced by this idiotic line of reasoning. If you can't come up with something better than this, you should really give up. You are doing nothing but embarrassing yourself.
Texas Cuernos Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:35 AM
So, Zinj, you would condone post birth infant homicide up to a "year or more"?
TelePrompterLess Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:39 AM
" a level of mental ability surpassing that of any other living creature" makes us human?

Thanks. By your own definition, you confirm what conservatives have long suspected...liberals are less than human. Case in point...Ed Schultz, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Fwank, and the list just goes on.

Oops...forgot Keith Olbermann...out of sight, out of mind.
Robert97 Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:41 AM
So we should kill those almost one-years olds who drive us crazy?
SFA7392 Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:46 AM
Dr_ Mengele-Zinj would probably allow post birth abortions to about age four, since most people have no memory of what occurred prior to that age.
USMC2531 Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:47 AM
doesnt exist until well after birth. one month? two months? three months? four months? five months? one year? two years? three years? ten years?

so what happens when someone kills that baby that is one month old? since in your lame opinion it isnt a human being. does that mean no murder charges?

dr? bullshat you are a doctor.
Dan107 Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:55 AM
So, in your view it is OK to kill babies up to one year old? What about slowly developing babies. It is OK to kill them up to 2 years old?
Maybe you should rethink your criteria.
Another new born was found in a rubbish bin the other day. According to your "insight, there's nothing in the world wrong with that. "Why are they prosecuting the mother?
rickmcq Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:57 AM
I prefer Keith Olbermann to be out of my sight because he is out of his mind.
Drik Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:57 AM
Chimps plateau at about the mental ability of a 10 year old human. Perhaps we should expand the post-birth abortion window to where they have to have exceeded the capability of a chimp.
Or longer if they went to Haaaavahd.
rickmcq Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 8:57 AM
Or of they pose an economic hardship...
Elliot26 Wrote: Apr 05, 2012 9:13 AM
Dr_Zinj, your comment only illustrates the "slippery slope" that is initiated by justifications for abortion. There is, in fact, a so-called "ethicist" at Princeton (Singer) who reasons that children below some arbitrary age are not reasoning beings and can therefore be done away with. Once you deny the non-negotiable sanctity of life, you open the door to the Nazis.
The reason tea partiers carried signs saying "Read the Constitution!" was that we were hoping people would read the Constitution.

Alas, we still have Rick Santorum saying Obamacare is the same as what he calls "Romneycare"; the otherwise brilliant Mickey Kaus sniffing that if states can mandate insurance purchases, then we're "not talking about some basic individual liberty to not purchase stuff" (no, just the nation's founding document, which protects "basic individual liberties" by putting constraints on Congress); and the former law professor, Barack Obama, alleging that a "good example" of judicial activism would be the Supreme Court (in his...