Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer
-
@Mik said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
She did eventually say no to the question as he framed it.
I must've missed that, did she? I like Kennedy's approach, let's first establish if there is a line. If they support the "abortion up until birth, for any reason", then there is no line.
-
As pro-life as I am, I thought his question pretty irrelevant. I don't think there is anywhere in this country where you could have a full-term child aborted without risk to the mother's life.
I don't think the line will be drawn federally anyway. But then a few years ago I didn't think SCOTUS would overturn Roe either.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@Mik said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
She did eventually say no to the question as he framed it.
I must've missed that, did she? I like Kennedy's approach, let's first establish if there is a line. If they support the "abortion up until birth, for any reason", then there is no line.
@89th said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
@Mik said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
She did eventually say no to the question as he framed it.
I must've missed that, did she? I like Kennedy's approach, let's first establish if there is a line. If they support the "abortion up until birth, for any reason", then there is no line.
It's a lawyer's question and doesn't address the issues that go along with it.
-
As pro-life as I am, I thought his question pretty irrelevant. I don't think there is anywhere in this country where you could have a full-term child aborted without risk to the mother's life.
I don't think the line will be drawn federally anyway. But then a few years ago I didn't think SCOTUS would overturn Roe either.
-
@Mik said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
She did eventually say no to the question as he framed it.
I must've missed that, did she? I like Kennedy's approach, let's first establish if there is a line. If they support the "abortion up until birth, for any reason", then there is no line.
@89th said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
@Mik said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
She did eventually say no to the question as he framed it.
I must've missed that, did she? I like Kennedy's approach, let's first establish if there is a line. If they support the "abortion up until birth, for any reason", then there is no line.
It is rare that any discussion is very clear black or white. There are always lines of gray.
-
@89th said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
@Mik said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
She did eventually say no to the question as he framed it.
I must've missed that, did she? I like Kennedy's approach, let's first establish if there is a line. If they support the "abortion up until birth, for any reason", then there is no line.
It is rare that any discussion is very clear black or white. There are always lines of gray.
@taiwan_girl said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
It is rare that any discussion is very clear black or white. There are always lines of gray.
Indeed.
But...
Kennedy tried, in his own way, to frame this as a matter of black or white.
To wit:
"Would you support or oppose a law that placed no restrictions on abortion regardless of the gestational fetus, including up to the time of birth?"
That's a pretty clear question, with no grey involved.
Either there are restrictions, or there are not. If there are no restrictions, would you support that?
His unasked question, I assume would have been, "If there are restrictions, what are they?"
-
@taiwan_girl said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
It is rare that any discussion is very clear black or white. There are always lines of gray.
Indeed.
But...
Kennedy tried, in his own way, to frame this as a matter of black or white.
To wit:
"Would you support or oppose a law that placed no restrictions on abortion regardless of the gestational fetus, including up to the time of birth?"
That's a pretty clear question, with no grey involved.
Either there are restrictions, or there are not. If there are no restrictions, would you support that?
His unasked question, I assume would have been, "If there are restrictions, what are they?"
@George-K said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
His unasked question, I assume would have been, "If there are restrictions, what are they?"
Exactly. It was kind of unfair question to make it black or white.
"Do you support Freedom of Speech?"
"Of Course!!"
"So, it is okay for me to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell - "FIRE!!!"
"No, thats not okay!!!"
"Then you don't support Freedom of Speech?????"
-
@George-K said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
His unasked question, I assume would have been, "If there are restrictions, what are they?"
Exactly. It was kind of unfair question to make it black or white.
"Do you support Freedom of Speech?"
"Of Course!!"
"So, it is okay for me to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell - "FIRE!!!"
"No, thats not okay!!!"
"Then you don't support Freedom of Speech?????"
@taiwan_girl said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
"So, it is okay for me to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell - "FIRE!!!"
That's a false analogy.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
"So, it is okay for me to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell - "FIRE!!!"
That's a false analogy.
@George-K Seems like it fits
"Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918) to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued that this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Maybe I not understand, but the above case seems to say that free speech is not an absolute. There are lines of grey.
I think same with abortion. I think that there are a minority of people who would say that there should be abortion anytime. And I think that it is a minority of people who would say that there is zero abortion, regardless of any circumstances.
-
@George-K Seems like it fits
"Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended by the Sedition Act of 1918) to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued that this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Maybe I not understand, but the above case seems to say that free speech is not an absolute. There are lines of grey.
I think same with abortion. I think that there are a minority of people who would say that there should be abortion anytime. And I think that it is a minority of people who would say that there is zero abortion, regardless of any circumstances.
@taiwan_girl correct. Your original response omitted the word “falsely. “
You’re also correct in saying that there are extremes at both end. What Kennedy is trying to do is determine whether this nominee is at either end. It’s a reasonable question.
Which she evades.
-
@George-K said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
His unasked question, I assume would have been, "If there are restrictions, what are they?"
Exactly. It was kind of unfair question to make it black or white.
"Do you support Freedom of Speech?"
"Of Course!!"
"So, it is okay for me to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell - "FIRE!!!"
"No, thats not okay!!!"
"Then you don't support Freedom of Speech?????"
@taiwan_girl said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
@George-K said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
His unasked question, I assume would have been, "If there are restrictions, what are they?"
Exactly. It was kind of unfair question to make it black or white.
"Do you support Freedom of Speech?"
"Of Course!!"
"So, it is okay for me to stand up in a crowded movie theater and yell - "FIRE!!!"
"No, thats not okay!!!"
"Then you don't support Freedom of Speech?????"
I thought that was a fair analogy. And in that question, the answer is "Yes it is ok in certain circumstances." The lady in the video could've said "Yes in certain circumstances" presuming she isn't in favor of abortion without restrictions (maybe she is, and honestly... should be if it's seen as just an elective surgery).
-
-
Without getting into the "when is viable" discussion, once again, I think @klaus had the best suggestion. Pick a date, and make everyone unhappy. Seems to work in Europe.
The clip doesn't show what Sen. Whitehouse (D-All White Beach Club) calls "highly unrealistic hypothetical."
But, that said, if you're very pro-life, as I guess Kennedy is, her argument, to him, is specious. He's thinking, "So, you're saying if we only kill a small proportion of babies, that's OK".
-
Without getting into the "when is viable" discussion, once again, I think @klaus had the best suggestion. Pick a date, and make everyone unhappy. Seems to work in Europe.
The clip doesn't show what Sen. Whitehouse (D-All White Beach Club) calls "highly unrealistic hypothetical."
But, that said, if you're very pro-life, as I guess Kennedy is, her argument, to him, is specious. He's thinking, "So, you're saying if we only kill a small proportion of babies, that's OK".
@George-K I agree. Nobody is going to be completely happy with whatever decision there is.
-
In my opinion, it is obvious that everyone who wants to allow abortions in the last trimester (medical emergencies notwithstanding) is insane.
Everyone who wants to ban abortions 30 minutes after conception is insane, too.
In between those numbers is a sweet spot of sanity.
-
In my opinion, it is obvious that everyone who wants to allow abortions in the last trimester (medical emergencies notwithstanding) is insane.
Everyone who wants to ban abortions 30 minutes after conception is insane, too.
In between those numbers is a sweet spot of sanity.
-
@George-K said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
@Klaus said in Sen. Kennedy won't get an answer:
a sweet spot of sanity.
Perfectly described.
+1
