It's human nature to desire to make things right but only if it's not more trouble than it's worth leaving things as they are.
Hiding In Plain Sight.
- Thread starter hrmwrm
- Start date
It's human nature to desire to make things right but only if it's not more trouble than it's worth leaving things as they are.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Running away from the question.
No canned response, so instead you pretend I am on your ignore list..... Weak-minded troll.
No one forces you to respond to me anyways. All you ever do is randomly flame me.
Of course now Foss and Cal are going to post about how if a SAINT and BRILLIANT SCHOLAR like yourself has put me on his ignore list I must be a worthless person yadda yadda yadda. Doesn't change the fact that you rarely have anything intelligent to say, and do nothing but make ignorant statements, then try and distract from the weakness in your statements through petty ad hominem argumentation and whatever other logical fallacies you can squeeze into your long worthless posts.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You often use the word 'fact' very loosely, yet your own arsenal of facts is consistently and thoroughly barren. You often make these wild, insulting claims attacking people's intelligence and supposed ignorance, yet you never back up such childish assertions.
The case has been made, quite convincingly, that you aren't somebody who argues in good faith, and therefore aren't worth talking to. Thus, the ignore feature gets activated on you. If you don't like it, stop whining and attacking people and start acting like an adult. It's not like your tactics haven't been explained to you multiple times as unhealthy for a good discussion.
But trying to construct a straw man argument for why people are ignoring you is foolish, considering a) it's a study in self-deception as nobody cares what you say anyway and b) you're talking to yourself.
Nevertheless, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and croak about it. Witnessing your meltdown is actually rather amusing.
Again, "the right" is foolishly placed in priority over "the good".
Also, defining what is "right" is very questionable. Some see it as an issue of protecting choice in this area while others see it as being an issue of protecting life.
It may be human nature to " want to make things right" (though I won't say I agree with that view), but there are a lot of other factors involved as well that complicate that; a greater good served by a strict adherence to the rule of law by judges being one of them.
When you start going beyond the most basic aspects of human nature, you start getting into subjective territory and into more complicated factors who's interactions are impossible to fully understand, especially in the aggregate. At that point, how human nature plays out becomes...unclear at best.
That is why the understanding of human nature, under any worldview, is necessarily simple and general.
I think you may be making this more complicated then it needs to be.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
You often use the word 'fact' very loosely, yet your own arsenal of facts is consistently and thoroughly barren. You often make these wild, insulting claims attacking people's intelligence and supposed ignorance, yet you never back up such childish assertions.
The case has been made, quite convincingly, that you aren't somebody who argues in good faith, and therefore aren't worth talking to. Thus, the ignore feature gets activated on you. If you don't like it, stop whining and attacking people and start acting like an adult. It's not like your tactics haven't been explained to you multiple times as unhealthy for a good discussion.
But trying to construct a straw man argument for why people are ignoring you is foolish, considering a) it's a study in self-deception as nobody cares what you say anyway and b) you're talking to yourself.
Nevertheless, if it makes you feel better, go ahead and croak about it. Witnessing your meltdown is actually rather amusing.
gosh, you are so predictable.
meldown
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
find said:
helps if you type my name right when you fake a quote. You forgot the caps Would make this act of yours a lot more believable. I'd be really embarassed.... but it is not me that did it, so I am not. Well, too bad, guess the truth is out already. Now you will have to put me on your ignore list or quit faking it.
I guess I gave you too much credit. I thought you would be smart enough to not slip up like that, or at least not be so obvious so quickly.
Looks like your standard tactics won't work once again.
I'll have a laugh at your expense, then I'll drop it. Don't feel too bad, we all make mistakes..... just most of us would have gone a little longer before making that mistake. Or maybe Cal will edit my post for you, and you can edit your post to fix it before everyone notices and laughs at you.
I must admit one of my shortcomings though. I have been looking around for it, where is the ignore button?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I found FIND's pic...
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
Well, I managed to get through this long winded thread, even though it wandered off topic as usual.
I have a constructive suggestion to the three or four of you who feel it necessary to stoop to name calling, and childish character assassination.
When you respond to a post, why not just say, "this is MY opinion, and should not be taken as gospel".
These pissing matches are really getting boring.
Differences of opinion are fine, but why belittle yourselves by stooping to needless name calling just because one has a different perspective than yours?
We all have different views and opinions on any given subject, so why not respect that?
Bob.
I have a constructive suggestion to the three or four of you who feel it necessary to stoop to name calling, and childish character assassination.
When you respond to a post, why not just say, "this is MY opinion, and should not be taken as gospel".
These pissing matches are really getting boring.
Differences of opinion are fine, but why belittle yourselves by stooping to needless name calling just because one has a different perspective than yours?
We all have different views and opinions on any given subject, so why not respect that?
Bob.
Sorry, '04. It is not my intention to be dismissive of your idea. However, I was about to run out the door for work and didn't have much time to respond. There are some logical implications to what you say. I will try and get to it tomorrow when I have more time...
No you didn't and that's fine.
But don't pretend you do, and don't make the mistake of thinking that simply being confrontational to people obscures this lack of knowledge.
If you were aware, then you wouldn't have identified my statement, one that is echoed by scholars like Alan Dersowitch, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Cass Sunstein as "the stupidest thing you've ever heard."
If I fail to miss a reasonable question or challenge, it's most likely because I didn't see it. You're desire to characterize it as "running from" it implies that there something intimidating or challenging about anything you're saying. That's not the case.
Because the nature of government is to expand its control in our lives and the tax code is a very powerful tool used by the federal government to do just that.
I don't know how to answer the question as you phrased it.
I also don't know how many more time I need to repeat this in this thread or why I should be any more specific, I've repeatedly said that there should be a civil contract available between two consenting adults that provides them the legal protections associated with marriage, with few exception, perhaps like the protection provided spouses from incriminating each other in court or the ability to extend citizenship if the person is a foreigner.
I also don't think there's any reason for this civil contract to have anything at all to do with sex. I don't see any reason for the government to be involved in the bedroom on this issue. I don't see any reason why the courts need to determine a way to define when a homosexual union has been "consummated." A straight couple should be able to engage in this kind of contract just a homosexual couple just as an asexual couple.
Part of the reason I feel you question is difficult to answer as stated has to do with the political culture and the amount of government involvement in our lives. I don't think that a gay couple is the same as a heterosexual couple, nor that they should be presented as two sides to the same coin. And when government is involved in everything we do, cradle to grave, there are vast unintended consequences that can be associated with providing, "every single benefit and drawback of marriage and were treated exactly the same in the eyes of the law or the IRS?"
Does this mean that in Kindergarten, children have to have mentions of marriage counter balanced with homosexuality? In a government school, that might be the case and I would not support that.
Should separating from each other, voiding the contract, be as difficult as a divorce? Yes.
And should a civil union provide the same tax benefits? I presume so, but I think the entire tax system in this country needs to be radically overhauled and transformed.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
So what is the difference in what you call that contract?
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh yes, great examples. Heck, they still believe in eugenics too. I bet that practice is constitutional.
As I said, constitutionally, wade v roe is sound. An individual has the right to privacy concerning their sexual practices, and that is what the whole case was based upon in the first place. Granted, they used a minor thing like that to set precedent over a wide number of things, but still. Its shortcomings do not lie in the constitutionality of the decision, and if you had not said it was a bad piece of constitutional law, then I would have been fine with that. If you said it was a weak decision, a vague decision, an overused decision, or a decision that in some ways exceeds its bounds, I would have been fine with that.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry, I know I can get carried away dealing with those two. I know it is annoying to have to read through all that crap too, so for my part, I apologize.
Words have meaning. Western civilization already has a definition associated with marriage. It's at the foundation of our society. And that definition differs with the kind of contract being discussed here.
The real question is, why are some people so insistent that marriage be redefined? To quote you, what's the difference in what you call it so long as you get the legal protections necessary?
I really don't know what point your trying to make here and I don't presume to know what it is.
You've just brought up an extremely controversial subject and made an association that you may have been unintentionally, but none the less truthful and interesting.
Can you clarify your point here?
Though I would add, I'm confident that Alan Dershowitz does not support eugenics.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
I really have no problem with what it is called, I was just posing the question to you. The words have meaning argument is quite useful to both sides you have to realize. Maybe gays don't just want the more tangible benefits that come from being legally joined. Perhaps they want their union to mean the same thing as their friends unions. I don't really think that is asking for much.
You may be right about Dershowitz, I may have been thinking of someone else. I was just saying by that reference that those people are not always right either. Just because they think it is a bad decision, does not ipso facto make it a bad decision. I wanted to know why EXACTLY you think it is bad constitutional law. I understand what parts of it you may not be in support of, but where is the unconstitutionality of the decision?
this is not a crusade against "traditional" marriage. this is for hiostorical context of definition. that is still what you and others stand by.
a redefinition of a word.
so, an african marriage is not a marriage because you say it isn't?
or an ancient roman one?
i'm sure many religious institutions won't perform gay marriages, so they can keep thier tradition just fine.
but you are really stuck on the definition of a word.
personally, i couldn't care what it's called.
Ross Douthat on Ideal Marriage, Male-Female Complementarity, and "The Order of Creation"
William Lindsey
Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:59:35 PM EST
Ross Douthat in today's New York Times admits that most of the arguments on which American neocon-style opposition to same-sex marriage is based are flat wrong: our definition of "traditional" marriage is hardly universal, as the religious and political right wishes to claim; polygamy, not monogamy, is the default setting for marriage in many cultures; and far from being raised by one man and one woman, many children around the world have historically been reared by a village.
Even so, Douthat wants to continue the drumbeat against same-sex marriage. And it's interesting to see where he goes as he tries to retrieve a foundation for his opposition. He goes to the same place that other Catholic neocon thinkers like Robert P. George go, the place to which evangelicals and other groups with little else in common with Catholic natural-law thinking are now also going as they seek to craft a compelling argument, any compelling argument, against gay marriage.
He goes to John Paul II's theology of the body with its insistence on the complementarity of the sexes. In other words, he grounds his opposition to same-sex marriage on the assertion that the genders are, in some essential, irreducible, "natural" and divinely "ordered" way, inherently opposite to each other. And that marriage exists to tame and order the natural opposition of the genders. Without that opposition all you can have is a simulation of real marriage.
It is essential to marriage that the spouses be different, Douthat proposes--and different in a way that surpasses any of the differences that same-sex partners may bring to the table. The difference that is all-important for a real marriage is gender difference, and that difference is grounded in an essentialist understanding of the nature of man and woman which makes the two into irreducible opposites. Men sleep around. Women want to sleep with the highest-status male possible.
Marriage throws these two ravenous tigers--promiscuous daddy, cunning, designing mommy seeking higher status--together and makes them work at living together. Grimly and for all they are worth. For the sake of the salvation of the world. And for the sake of the children.
On this arrangement alone, on this social institution uniquely, depends the salvation--the order--of the world. Let men avoid being yoked to a woman who tames their promiscuity, and let women keep shopping around for the male mate of highest status--and who knows what discord might ensue at a cosmic level?
Only this sort of marriage can create, Douthat proposes, the unique kind of domestic life in which children can best be brought to well-developed maturity. Children need to see the tiger of Daddy's whoring and of Mommy's sly unstinting search for a higher-standing male caught and tamed, in order to turn into psychologically healthy adults with an edge on those poor unfortunates deprived of that drama in their households as they grow up.
What lurks at the murky bottom of this new (since it began with John Paul II) gender-complementarity argument about divine "order" and "nature" is precisely the thing that Judge Walker wanted to point out about most arguments for traditional marriage: they rest on the insupportable belief that there is something inherently fixed and unchangeable about gender roles due to the biological difference in the sexes. The gender-complementarity argument seeks to find a way around the obvious fact that we accept the marriage of a non-procreative man and a woman as a real and "traditional" marriage, while we kick and scream against the thought of two people of the same gender marrying because, we claim, they cannot procreate.
It wants to move around that marriage-is-for-procreation argument because marriage is clearly not for procreation if we permit a man and a woman who cannot or will not have children to marry. The justification for traditional marriage grounded in John Paul II's theology of the body imagines that it has discovered an irrefutable argument to counter those who, like Judge Walker, note that marriage, as a social institution, has moved away from state-decreed gender roles, and that marriage as it now exists has long since departed from the notion that the two spouses must agree to play the role of mutually opposing opposites, each with an assigned task. Because one is male and one is female.
The neocon application of John Paul II's theology of the body believes it has discovered an unanswerable argument for the superiority of "traditional" marriage when it maintains that masculinity and femininity are encoded in the "order of creation," and that we tamper with that order (and the marital arrangement it implies) at our peril.
From a theological standpoint, the most important question to ask about this argument is where in scripture and tradition one finds it written that the order of the cosmos and of social institutions depends on identifying and maintaining an essential difference in the sexes that goes beyond biological difference? Where is it written that men have male souls and women have female souls?
And if gender difference and marriage revolving around this difference are the key to the gospels, why did Jesus not marry? Why did he not marry a woman? Why did he almost never speak of the centrality of marriage, and why did he even appear to disdain marriage and family when he told us that following him and seeking the reign of God takes precedence over the claims of family? Why did he transgress the taken-for-granted gender roles of his day (which mandated female subordination) by permitting women to follow and touch him, by eating with impure women as well as with men?
If maintaining a natural, God-given, established order of creation (and of society, based on the divine order of creation) was so central to Jesus's message, why do the writers of the Christian scriptures so constantly and vehemently insist that those joined to Christ become a new creation, and that the old creation has passed away? And that in Christ there is no male nor female, because the new creation abolishes such non-essential differences, with the opposition (and subordination) we have long sought to ground in our perception of such differences?
With its appeal to an immutable "divine order" encoded into creation by the Creator, and with its curiously obtuse insistence on the irreducible difference of masculinity and femininity (a difference that goes well beyond biological difference), the theology of the body and its adherents want to do two primary things. They want, first, to ground fixed gender roles in nature.
And they want then to assure that no matter what other cultural renegotiations take place, what it means to be a man remains constant. Constant and grounded in nature and divine order.
The theology of the body is all about maintaining the domination of the world by heterosexual men in the name of God and divine order. No matter how wildly novel its arguments become as each straw-man argument of patriarchy and homophobia is demolished in the debate about same-sex marriage, that assertion will continue to dominate the male-female complementarity argument appealing to the theology of the body.
Because that is what this theology is designed to do. And what it is all about.
William Lindsey
Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:59:35 PM EST
Ross Douthat in today's New York Times admits that most of the arguments on which American neocon-style opposition to same-sex marriage is based are flat wrong: our definition of "traditional" marriage is hardly universal, as the religious and political right wishes to claim; polygamy, not monogamy, is the default setting for marriage in many cultures; and far from being raised by one man and one woman, many children around the world have historically been reared by a village.
Even so, Douthat wants to continue the drumbeat against same-sex marriage. And it's interesting to see where he goes as he tries to retrieve a foundation for his opposition. He goes to the same place that other Catholic neocon thinkers like Robert P. George go, the place to which evangelicals and other groups with little else in common with Catholic natural-law thinking are now also going as they seek to craft a compelling argument, any compelling argument, against gay marriage.
He goes to John Paul II's theology of the body with its insistence on the complementarity of the sexes. In other words, he grounds his opposition to same-sex marriage on the assertion that the genders are, in some essential, irreducible, "natural" and divinely "ordered" way, inherently opposite to each other. And that marriage exists to tame and order the natural opposition of the genders. Without that opposition all you can have is a simulation of real marriage.
It is essential to marriage that the spouses be different, Douthat proposes--and different in a way that surpasses any of the differences that same-sex partners may bring to the table. The difference that is all-important for a real marriage is gender difference, and that difference is grounded in an essentialist understanding of the nature of man and woman which makes the two into irreducible opposites. Men sleep around. Women want to sleep with the highest-status male possible.
Marriage throws these two ravenous tigers--promiscuous daddy, cunning, designing mommy seeking higher status--together and makes them work at living together. Grimly and for all they are worth. For the sake of the salvation of the world. And for the sake of the children.
On this arrangement alone, on this social institution uniquely, depends the salvation--the order--of the world. Let men avoid being yoked to a woman who tames their promiscuity, and let women keep shopping around for the male mate of highest status--and who knows what discord might ensue at a cosmic level?
Only this sort of marriage can create, Douthat proposes, the unique kind of domestic life in which children can best be brought to well-developed maturity. Children need to see the tiger of Daddy's whoring and of Mommy's sly unstinting search for a higher-standing male caught and tamed, in order to turn into psychologically healthy adults with an edge on those poor unfortunates deprived of that drama in their households as they grow up.
What lurks at the murky bottom of this new (since it began with John Paul II) gender-complementarity argument about divine "order" and "nature" is precisely the thing that Judge Walker wanted to point out about most arguments for traditional marriage: they rest on the insupportable belief that there is something inherently fixed and unchangeable about gender roles due to the biological difference in the sexes. The gender-complementarity argument seeks to find a way around the obvious fact that we accept the marriage of a non-procreative man and a woman as a real and "traditional" marriage, while we kick and scream against the thought of two people of the same gender marrying because, we claim, they cannot procreate.
It wants to move around that marriage-is-for-procreation argument because marriage is clearly not for procreation if we permit a man and a woman who cannot or will not have children to marry. The justification for traditional marriage grounded in John Paul II's theology of the body imagines that it has discovered an irrefutable argument to counter those who, like Judge Walker, note that marriage, as a social institution, has moved away from state-decreed gender roles, and that marriage as it now exists has long since departed from the notion that the two spouses must agree to play the role of mutually opposing opposites, each with an assigned task. Because one is male and one is female.
The neocon application of John Paul II's theology of the body believes it has discovered an unanswerable argument for the superiority of "traditional" marriage when it maintains that masculinity and femininity are encoded in the "order of creation," and that we tamper with that order (and the marital arrangement it implies) at our peril.
From a theological standpoint, the most important question to ask about this argument is where in scripture and tradition one finds it written that the order of the cosmos and of social institutions depends on identifying and maintaining an essential difference in the sexes that goes beyond biological difference? Where is it written that men have male souls and women have female souls?
And if gender difference and marriage revolving around this difference are the key to the gospels, why did Jesus not marry? Why did he not marry a woman? Why did he almost never speak of the centrality of marriage, and why did he even appear to disdain marriage and family when he told us that following him and seeking the reign of God takes precedence over the claims of family? Why did he transgress the taken-for-granted gender roles of his day (which mandated female subordination) by permitting women to follow and touch him, by eating with impure women as well as with men?
If maintaining a natural, God-given, established order of creation (and of society, based on the divine order of creation) was so central to Jesus's message, why do the writers of the Christian scriptures so constantly and vehemently insist that those joined to Christ become a new creation, and that the old creation has passed away? And that in Christ there is no male nor female, because the new creation abolishes such non-essential differences, with the opposition (and subordination) we have long sought to ground in our perception of such differences?
With its appeal to an immutable "divine order" encoded into creation by the Creator, and with its curiously obtuse insistence on the irreducible difference of masculinity and femininity (a difference that goes well beyond biological difference), the theology of the body and its adherents want to do two primary things. They want, first, to ground fixed gender roles in nature.
And they want then to assure that no matter what other cultural renegotiations take place, what it means to be a man remains constant. Constant and grounded in nature and divine order.
The theology of the body is all about maintaining the domination of the world by heterosexual men in the name of God and divine order. No matter how wildly novel its arguments become as each straw-man argument of patriarchy and homophobia is demolished in the debate about same-sex marriage, that assertion will continue to dominate the male-female complementarity argument appealing to the theology of the body.
Because that is what this theology is designed to do. And what it is all about.
probably. But your indictment of a Supreme Court Justice and the President's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as being supportive of eugenics is very interesting.
I would actually argue that those three people I mentioned are usually wrong, profoundly wrong- but I wouldn't make the mistake of calling them stupid.
Of course not, but it does demonstrate that my comment wasn't the "Stupidest thing you'd ever heard," especially if you have any background or awareness of the subject. It's widely agreed that it was a bad decision.
It'll have to wait until this evening.
Where in the history of Western civilization has marriage been used to include homosexual unions.
Pygmy tribes and pagan cultures aside.
And will you later be embracing cannibalism and human sacrifice too, since that can also be found using your cultural relativism and "historical context?"
Actually, I don't think they called those unions "marriages" either.
Asides from the fact they spoke a different language, the communities treated homosexual couples differently. In the case of the Roman period (around 300AD), homosexuality wasn't treated the same as heterosexual couples. From what I've read, the history of that period is a bit sketchy, but you're effort to equate the two is a mistake.
But more importantly, you're comparing societies that are vastly different. Because primitive tribes or pagan cultures 1700 years ago engage in one behavior (arguable different than what you are advocating right now), that has no bearing or "historical context" to this discussion, or this civilization.
Historical context is meaningless unless it's relevant.
If that's the case, if we just call it something else, or do something as I outlined, the problem is solved. If this is about "rights" or legal protection, there's no reason to redefine the word. We would have overwhelming consensus, unity, and couples would have the legal protections that were prevent the horror stories of "I couldn't visit my partner in the hospital" anymore.
The Roe v. Wade decision is rooted in a distortion of the Constitution; specifically through equivocation of the concept of due process. Without any Constitutional (or other textual) basis, the concept is arbitrarily split into two concepts; procedural due process (which is the true meaning of due process), and "substantive" due process. From "substantive" due process comes the notion of "substantive" rights. As the liberal law processor who first explained these concepts to me put it, substantive due process is, "an empty glass into which you poor your own ideas"; it is nothing but a tool to rewrite the Constitution.
There is no broad "right to choose" in the constitution, specifically not by way of the fictitious and dishonest notion of "substantive due process".
There is no broad "right to choose" in the constitution, specifically not by way of the fictitious and dishonest notion of "substantive due process".
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
as I said, I was probably thinking of someone else. As far as Ruth Bader Ginsburg goes, she definitely believes in eugenics.... so.... yeah.... Not like I was all wrong, I just made a mistake on one of the people.
I didn't call them stupid either. But any of those three are capable of saying stupid things.
A bad decision maybe. Bad constitutional law, no.
No, Roe vs Wade was primarily based on the right to privacy. The reason she was denied and abortion in the first place is because it was found that she was lying about being raped, and according to the supreme court, her sexual activity should be private.
Beyond that, the right to privacy was extended to protecting a woman's choice to have an abortion. This is where there is a gray area, since the time at which you define life is the main consideration with whether or not a person legally has a choice in the matter.
Justice Henry Blackmun said:
Though the case was rested primarily on the Due Process clause, the decision of the court was that a woman's privacy could not be limited without due process of the law, and she could choose to terminate a pregnancy. The court still conceded that the state had an interest in protecting life, but once again, this goes back to a question of the start of life, which is not a matter covered by the constitution, and honestly, I don't really think it should be.
Either way, there is another question it goes back to. Certainly the Constitution does not guarantee the right to abortion, but it does not give the states the right to prevent it either. So the question here is, how much control should the government have over your life and how much independence should you have?
Start of life is the issue in Roe V Wade where there is gray area or weakness. The constitutionality of the decision is not.
To the issue of due process, the court could not find significant basis for the Texas law, meaning it was just an arbitrary standard, therefore citizens were denied due process in the drafting of the law. In Section VII, the Court describes the interests that could be cited to justify criminalizing abortion:
an interest in discouraging women from engaging in "illicit sexual conduct", which interest would be undermined by making abortion widely available; an interest in reducing access to a risky medical procedure—which abortion could still be in the late stages of pregnancy, despite modern medical techniques such as antibiotics; and an interest in protecting prenatal life.
which is why it is still legal to make abortions illegal. One must simply observe due process and respect the privacy of the individual. Constitutionally sound. Good decision, maybe or maybe not.
Semantics.
A right to choice via a right to privacy through a bastardization of the due process clause. The point is that the ruling is rooted in a bastardization of the due process clause of the Constitution. What you cite shows that. It doesn't matter how eloquent the wording in the ruling is, the fact is that the ruling is based on legal fiction and is not Constitutional.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it, though it does not fully address the issues in Roe V Wade, but there is also nothing in the constitution giving the state or federal government the right to restrict abortion. Their only interest is in preserving life, which is why the real problem area with the Roe V Wade decision comes down to the start of life debate, which has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the decision.
Are people supposed to take you seriously when you start a conversation in a condescending manner and fall back on insulting, cheap excuses like this when it becomes clear that your condescension was hasty, presumptuous and uncalled for?
What, exactly, is "opinion" about what I just said; a right to choice via a right to privacy through a bastardization of the due process clause.
Can you show me a textual foundation for the notion of substantive due process?
You ever hear of the idea of Federalism?
Per the Constitution alone, the states have every right to restrict abortion.