Leaving inalienable rights to the whims of a court, a judge, or as Justice Scalia seems to imply here, the public via democratic process (perhaps the most misguided of these options given mob mentality, whatever the mob), renders such rights most alienable from those it was designed to protect. While yes, as Justice Scalia notes, such rights can be taken, but only where there is due process. And yet, we know from American history that due process has often been perverted to violate and eliminate the rights of others (e.g. forcing African-Americans to take and "pass" ridiculous tests to be able to vote, with a failing mark nearly guaranteed). Note, while likely all agree the due process is required before removing rights of others, in this case, women and their families, no one dares propose an actual framework that would make outright ilegalization of abortion plausible. This is simply because no such framework can exist in a free country without outright violatation of the rights and freedoms of women and their doctors, and of course, without usurping the physician-patient privilege. Put more simply, a woman´s visit to the doctor (nor anyone else´s) is or should be a public matter. One need only consider the case of a woman desiring to abort a fetus that may end her life or will in every likelihood be stillborn, and leaving the decision whether to go forward with this procedure to a court, or worse, the popular vote of the American people (perhaps done over the internet to speed up the process), to see how ridiculous this concept is from a legal and governmental standpoint. This is why the pro-life movement is one for religions to preach, and for very good and important reasons in my opinion, but not for governments to enforce, also, for very good and important reasons. I say this as a man, and not a woman; I say this as a Roman Catholic, and not an athiest or agnostic. For those who insist on a ilegalization of abortion, I humply and genuinely suggest you place your time not in the passage of laws, but in assisting those Mothers whom have chosen to carry and deliver a disabled or mentally retarded child, Mothers whom have suffered mental and physical injury from carrying to term a risky pregnancy, and Mothers whom have valiantly decided to keep children conceived in tragic circumstances such as rape. Passing laws will not create a more moral society in this regard, yet coming to the aide of women in the above circumstances certainly will do so. As to Christians and all those who admire Christ as a prophet, perhaps we should all ask ourselves honestly, which would Christ prefer given His words and teachings?
Piers Morgan is a complete jackass! He didn't say a single logical thiing in this whole exchange. He is a professional at being a blowhard on topics he has no comprehension of. It's painful to watch a Supreme Court Justice endure his stupidity.
because the job is uphold what people voted for, and not to put your own opinions into it. if you are not capable of doing that, you obviously shouldnt be a judge. and besides, i think you're greatly exaggerating how horrible anti-abortion laws are.
Homo sapien is the term for for 'thinking man'. Our ability to think, reason, manipulate, etc. is what sets humanity apart from the rest of Earth's inhabitants. I think whether or not you consider humanity a species or a race is irrelevant, seeing how either way you look at it humanity is of a higher order than any other life form on Earth.
CONT… The very comparison you just spelled out is not comparing apples to apples. Slavery was at slaves expense, a woman choosing abortion would then have to be at the woman's expense. It isn't, even in your attempted analogy. You don't seem to understand that an embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to use, occupy, or alter a woman's body any more than any born being does, and the reality of being pregnant and what that does to a woman's body isn't even present in the born being scenario.
Believe me, a college degree does not make one educated. It's just a piece of paper. What makes you educated is the knowledge you've obtained over your lifetime. And Justice Scalia doesn't show very much knowledge and skill in these interviews, because he always runs his mouth in the wrong directions.
Without a doubt. That man has protected defendants guilty of spreading hate speech. He recently called voting laws "racial entitlements" and he just gives off vibes that he's prejudiced.I wouldn't be surprised if he has a stromfront account.
Stop posting replies to yourself. You can post multiple replies to a comment.
The criteria of what a human being is has been covered, and it has been pointed out that THAT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND ABORTION RIGHTS ARE JUSTIFIED. It isn't about personhood. It could be stipulated that the organism is a person, and the woman is fully justified in choosing an abortion. Stop arguing as if I ever said that it not being a person is required for abortion rights to be justified.
The question goes back to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." — Kill a toddler, it's murder or if you kill a full-term baby is also murder. That simple.
If you take someone's life, you violate his/her liberties based on the "non-aggression principle" in which the present day libertarian philosophies stand on.
FUCK YOU Justice Antonin Scalia!
LOL Half of all abortions where girls. Where was there right to chose any thing.
Leaving inalienable rights to the whims of a court, a judge, or as Justice Scalia seems to imply here, the public via democratic process (perhaps the most misguided of these options given mob mentality, whatever the mob), renders such rights most alienable from those it was designed to protect. While yes, as Justice Scalia notes, such rights can be taken, but only where there is due process. And yet, we know from American history that due process has often been perverted to violate and eliminate the rights of others (e.g. forcing African-Americans to take and "pass" ridiculous tests to be able to vote, with a failing mark nearly guaranteed). Note, while likely all agree the due process is required before removing rights of others, in this case, women and their families, no one dares propose an actual framework that would make outright ilegalization of abortion plausible. This is simply because no such framework can exist in a free country without outright violatation of the rights and freedoms of women and their doctors, and of course, without usurping the physician-patient privilege. Put more simply, a woman´s visit to the doctor (nor anyone else´s) is or should be a public matter. One need only consider the case of a woman desiring to abort a fetus that may end her life or will in every likelihood be stillborn, and leaving the decision whether to go forward with this procedure to a court, or worse, the popular vote of the American people (perhaps done over the internet to speed up the process), to see how ridiculous this concept is from a legal and governmental standpoint. This is why the pro-life movement is one for religions to preach, and for very good and important reasons in my opinion, but not for governments to enforce, also, for very good and important reasons. I say this as a man, and not a woman; I say this as a Roman Catholic, and not an athiest or agnostic. For those who insist on a ilegalization of abortion, I humply and genuinely suggest you place your time not in the passage of laws, but in assisting those Mothers whom have chosen to carry and deliver a disabled or mentally retarded child, Mothers whom have suffered mental and physical injury from carrying to term a risky pregnancy, and Mothers whom have valiantly decided to keep children conceived in tragic circumstances such as rape. Passing laws will not create a more moral society in this regard, yet coming to the aide of women in the above circumstances certainly will do so. As to Christians and all those who admire Christ as a prophet, perhaps we should all ask ourselves honestly, which would Christ prefer given His words and teachings?
Piers Morgan is a complete jackass! He didn't say a single logical thiing in this whole exchange. He is a professional at being a blowhard on topics he has no comprehension of. It's painful to watch a Supreme Court Justice endure his stupidity.
because the job is uphold what people voted for, and not to put your own opinions into it. if you are not capable of doing that, you obviously shouldnt be a judge. and besides, i think you're greatly exaggerating how horrible anti-abortion laws are.
Homo sapien is the term for for 'thinking man'. Our ability to think, reason, manipulate, etc. is what sets humanity apart from the rest of Earth's inhabitants. I think whether or not you consider humanity a species or a race is irrelevant, seeing how either way you look at it humanity is of a higher order than any other life form on Earth.
CONT… The very comparison you just spelled out is not comparing apples to apples. Slavery was at slaves expense, a woman choosing abortion would then have to be at the woman's expense. It isn't, even in your attempted analogy. You don't seem to understand that an embryo/fetus doesn't have the right to use, occupy, or alter a woman's body any more than any born being does, and the reality of being pregnant and what that does to a woman's body isn't even present in the born being scenario.
Piers is a nimrod!
Believe me, a college degree does not make one educated. It's just a piece of paper. What makes you educated is the knowledge you've obtained over your lifetime. And Justice Scalia doesn't show very much knowledge and skill in these interviews, because he always runs his mouth in the wrong directions.
Without a doubt. That man has protected defendants guilty of spreading hate speech. He recently called voting laws "racial entitlements" and he just gives off vibes that he's prejudiced.I wouldn't be surprised if he has a stromfront account.
Just a little question I m not sure where it leads to ..
Whats the difference between a fetus and a tumor and a parasite ?
Abortion, marriage, speech, expression (flag burning), religion (to and from).
Homo sapien is a species, not a race.
A real judge.
I agre, yet being himself puts him as such nonetheless.
You can't have that kind of accent and come tell American about their constitution, vs what he perceived as rights, to a justice at that.
Piers Morgan needs to read the section of the constitution discussing the amendment process.
Stop posting replies to yourself. You can post multiple replies to a comment.
The criteria of what a human being is has been covered, and it has been pointed out that THAT DOESN'T EVEN NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND ABORTION RIGHTS ARE JUSTIFIED. It isn't about personhood. It could be stipulated that the organism is a person, and the woman is fully justified in choosing an abortion. Stop arguing as if I ever said that it not being a person is required for abortion rights to be justified.
Would you say the same about a law that allowed the killing of toddlers?
That makes zero sense. As Scalia makes clear in the interview, the issue of abortion should be decided by the democratic process and not by the bench.
The question goes back to "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." — Kill a toddler, it's murder or if you kill a full-term baby is also murder. That simple.
If you take someone's life, you violate his/her liberties based on the "non-aggression principle" in which the present day libertarian philosophies stand on.
Of course I don't want abortions to occur. No one does, ffs, you idiot. I want them to be legal. That doesn't mean I want them to occur.