 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
You want us to take you seriously, when you actually wonder whether or not liberals would sympathize with the Nazis during the Nuremberg trial???? |
Now I didn't say that did I?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Most people were outraged during the trials after ww2 in Germany at the heartless indifference of the persecutors of Jews and others during the war. I was wondering if you would all see that. Or would the makup of the court attract your attention first?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Seriously Lincoln, I don't find abortions to be a pleasent thing. In fact, if it were up to me, I would hope that abortions would never be necessary and every potential child would have a loving home to care for it. In fact, I think that children should be treated as the world's most valuable commodity.
This is a subject that touches me even on a personal level actually. Just this year, my younger sister became pregnant and I was thinking about having an abortion. The Mrs. and I explained to her some of the risks, but told her that we would love and support her regardless of her decision. She is now planning on having the baby in a couple months.
It is just disappointing that this is the only issue that you ever choose to make a stand of compassion on. |
Actually this is not the only issue I choose to take a stand on but if someone is not moved by the outrageous treatment of an innocent child then I seriously doubt their motives. You have a picture of a cute dog for your avatar. Would you also be offended if a judge asked pointed questions about pulling his legs off during a trial?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well thanks for clearing that up Mr Fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Should only women judges judge women? And can women judges judge men?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I don't get it. If a woman asks for the voluntary termination of her fetus's life, why would she want a corpse to grieve over?
Reading the transcript it appears to me that the judge may have felt that the doctor was being evasive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I don't get it. If a woman asks for the voluntary termination of her fetus's life, why would she want a corpse to grieve over?
Reading the transcript it appears to me that the judge may have felt that the doctor was being evasive. |
Bingo! I wonder why no one else saw that quote. How or why would someone grieve over so much tissue?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
So I guess this judge is OK with you, Lincoln, because his sentiments are similar to, if not identical, to yours? What happens if a judge's sentiments are not in line with your views? Would you then be like some others on this thread, questioning the judge's ability to render an unbiased judgement?
One person's activist judge is another person's unbiased member of the judiciary, it seems.
Gatekeeper |
I don't even know this judge but he should not be labeled because he asks obvious questions that no one seems to want to answer. Does the fetus feel pain when his arms and legs are being ripped off? Yes__ No__
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I didn't think of that retort, Mike. Yeah! what he said Mr Fun. Judges don't often ask direct questions but they are entitled to if they think that the revelant questions were not asked by either side. After all, the justice system is supposed to be concerned with the truth. I realize that is a foreign concept now but anyway...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
He hasn't made a decision yet. Give the man a break. I know he is probably a white male but maybe he is really not the scum of the earth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
I don't even know this judge but he should not be labeled because he asks obvious questions that no one seems to want to answer. Does the fetus feel pain when his arms and legs are being ripped off? Yes__ No__ |
My problem (or possible problem) with the questions goes to relevance. The court isn't the place to advocate the morality of the procedure, or whether abortion should be allowed at all, or under what circumstances.
If the fetus at this stage is a legally recognized person (i.e. third trimester or earlier viability), then the question of pain and fetal response is completely relevant. That would be part and parcel of the balancing of rights issues between mother and fetus, assuming that the procedure is medically necessary to protect the mother and that there are no alternative procedures of similar or greater efficacy. Both of those issues are questions of fact, but may not apply in this case - I simply don't know the exact wording of the law and haven't read the case filings.
If you're talking in a general sense, fetal pain may not be relevant. Animals obviously feel pain when they're killed in a slaughterhouse (traumatic death is painful, period), but does that have any legal relevance? We don't recognize animals as having particular rights, although we outlaw wanton cruelty towards them, at least by some definition.
The law being challenged only bars a specific procedure, it doesn't bar all abortions at that stage of development, so that's where I question the relevance - if it's permissible to use other procedures to abort a fetus under similar medical and developmental circumstances, then we're clearly not dealing with a legal recognition of fetuses as having specific rights. That gives me the impression that the questions are not legally relevant, and you get into the issue of whether the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial value of the testimony. It could create a distinct basis for appeal.
If you're dealing with a general issue of fetal rights and recognition of legal status, then feelings of pain and pain response are not only relevant, they go to the core of the issue.
Wrt objectivity and recusal, I disagree with the lefties. Nobody is "objective" about something like the Green River killer, 9-11, or many other issues. Humans aren't objective creatures. The question isn't whether the judge has strong opinions on the issue, it's whether he can apply the law objectively, and merely asking harsh, pointed questions of a witness doesn't tell me he can't apply the law objectively.
Last edited by MichaeltheGreat on 03-04-2004 at 08:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Well said. I think that objectivity is a rather evasive for most of us. That is why court stacking has always been an American tradition.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
Have you stopped beating your wife?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2004 07:11
|