SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cosmicforce who wrote (466382)1/27/2021 1:02:58 PM
From: Doo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 540733
 
I'm not sure I follow all of your points in this post, but I do think equal protection is the correct avenue the Court should have taken in Roe. I believe that's what John M shared about his recollection of what RGB said about the opinion. Instead, the Court went through a tortured search for the "right to privacy" in the 14th Amendment and created a hodge-podge opinion that has proved to be vulnerable to serious attack.

As I said, I agree with the conclusion. I've never been a fan of how they reached that conclusion.



To: cosmicforce who wrote (466382)1/27/2021 5:44:44 PM
From: Jamie153  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 540733
 
If you don't mind a brief interruption.

We all seem to be okay with letting people die when it's inevitable. But when it comes to a premature baby (one that would die almost instantly without machines) we're willing to spend millions keeping it alive. I've always found this odd. IMO, both are destined to die without massive intervention and both should be allowed to die with dignity.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News