3 ms·
I can't parse what this means. Is the idea that we are to assume malice of intent to the reasons the Court does things, and that "consistency" is not a legitima
by remarkEon 4y ago
I can't parse what this means. Is the idea that we are to assume malice of intent to the reasons the Court does things, and that "consistency" is not a legitimate reason to argue about it? How do you know what the "true" reason is?
- philosopher1234 4y ago
- Tomte 4y agoIt would be nice if you at least kept up the appearance of polite discussion. Faux "quotations" make you look much worse than your nemesis. Projecting invented intentions is not okay, either. Not to speak of clearly breaking the site's guidelines.
- rayiner 4y agoWhat is this “right” to an abortion and who decided it exists? It’s worth noting that the EU Court of Human Rights has repeatedly refused to recognize a “right” to abortion under the EU Convention on Human Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A,_B_and_C_v_Ireland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A,_B_and_C_v_Ireland There’s no right to an abortion in most of Europe. Legislatures allow abortion to varying degrees, but it’s seen as a matter of legislation, not “rights.”