3 ms·

And people much more versed on the law than you and I (I know you are a lawyer) believe it wasn’t made “up out of thin air”. You didn’t understand the point I

And people much more versed on the law than you and I (I know you are a lawyer) believe it wasn’t made “up out of thin air”. You didn’t understand the point I made. Your opinion and whether or not abortion in the U.S. is a constitutional right is not objectively the correct one. Well meaning experts with more expertise than you disagree with your characterization.

rayiner 3y ago
When Roe was decided, a liberal law professor stated that it is “bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense. That’s why over the decades the defense of Roe has largely been reduced to the assertion that it’s precedent. It’s the left’s Lochner. Invoking “experts” is unavailing because those experts are not speaking within the scope of their expertise. Their assertions are in the realm of moral philosophy, not law. It’s a religious edict within the church of secular humanism.
- skhunted 3y ago
  It is ironic that you don’t understand the point made given what the topic is about. Your logic is badly flawed. You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise than you can give a well reasoned opinion contrary to what you have stated.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
    - skhunted 3y ago
      Your reasoning skills are quite lacking. Your response to my so called argument from authority is to...wait for it....appeal to an authority. That is quite ironic! I did not argue form authority but because I was not advancing the idea that abortion is a constitutional right. I was advancing the idea that there are experts who think it is. And experts who think otherwise. But it is not a logical fallacy to use the opinions of an expert in their area of expertise. You know virtually nothing about quantum mechanics and in a discussion about quantum mechanics it is valid to defer to what an expert says on that topic. Indeed, the court system understands the value of expert testimony for good reason. They know that using an expert in their area of expertise is valid and carries weight. Of course that does not mean experts are always right. Just means they know more than you. None of this is germane to the point I made. I was not arguing from authority. I was talking about what I originally wrote versus what you replied with. Read what I originally wrote. Your point made no sense unless you can show that it is universally agreed by judges (or other experts in law) that there is no constitutional basis for a right to an abortion.
      - dctoedt 3y ago
        Friend, your ad hominem comments in this thread are really billboarding your naivete. There are many things that Rayiner and I disagree about, but he's a brilliant lawyer who clerked for a federal circuit-court judge (one of the most-prestigious positions there is for new lawyers) and who has impressive techie credentials from before that. It's painfully obvious that you have little or no idea how judges go about deciding hard cases under American law — what they're required to do; what they're prohibited from doing; what they're given leeway to do if they deem it appropriate.
        skhunted 3y ago
        Mentioning that he is a brilliant lawyer is, in Rayiner's opinion, a logical fallacy. You are engaging in what he thinks is bad reasoning in support of him. I think it is a fact that courts do sometimes use expert testimony. If that is not the case then strike that portion from my response to rayiner. It isn't needed to make my point which is that relying on expert advice is not an argumentative fallacy. It is strange that a brilliant lawyer and technologist would try to refute the citing of an expert's opinion by referencing a website. You can see the irony in that, right? You do realize that referring to an "authority" is not a valid way to advance the notion that referring to authorities is wrong, right?
- skhunted 3y ago
  Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense. The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their life for another. In this sense one can reasonably argue that one has a constitutional right to an abortion.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their life for another. I guess you haven't served in the military?
    - skhunted 3y ago
      Serving in the military in time of war is not the same thing as "forcing someone to risk their life for another" as I meant it. I'll be more precise. The government does not have a right to force me to directly use my body or parts of it to save your life. Thus is the essence that some lawyers have argued and reasoned.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        > The government does not have a right to force me to directly use my body or parts of it to save your life. Thus is the essence that some lawyers have argued and reasoned. According to whom? And even if you believe that, why does that mean the constitution bakes in that belief?
  - JamesBarney 3y ago
    I'm pro-choice but arguing the government doesn't have the right to limit medical procedures doesn't seem obvious to me.
    - skhunted 3y ago
      I didn’t claim this. My claim (later clarified) is that the government doesn’t have a right to force me to use my body to save another person’s life.

rayiner 3y ago

When Roe was decided, a liberal law professor stated that it is “bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense. That’s why over the decades the defense of Roe has largely been reduced to the assertion that it’s precedent. It’s the left’s Lochner. Invoking “experts” is unavailing because those experts are not speaking within the scope of their expertise. Their assertions are in the realm of moral philosophy, not law. It’s a religious edict within the church of secular humanism.

skhunted 3y ago
It is ironic that you don’t understand the point made given what the topic is about. Your logic is badly flawed. You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise than you can give a well reasoned opinion contrary to what you have stated.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  - skhunted 3y ago
    Your reasoning skills are quite lacking. Your response to my so called argument from authority is to...wait for it....appeal to an authority. That is quite ironic! I did not argue form authority but because I was not advancing the idea that abortion is a constitutional right. I was advancing the idea that there are experts who think it is. And experts who think otherwise. But it is not a logical fallacy to use the opinions of an expert in their area of expertise. You know virtually nothing about quantum mechanics and in a discussion about quantum mechanics it is valid to defer to what an expert says on that topic. Indeed, the court system understands the value of expert testimony for good reason. They know that using an expert in their area of expertise is valid and carries weight. Of course that does not mean experts are always right. Just means they know more than you. None of this is germane to the point I made. I was not arguing from authority. I was talking about what I originally wrote versus what you replied with. Read what I originally wrote. Your point made no sense unless you can show that it is universally agreed by judges (or other experts in law) that there is no constitutional basis for a right to an abortion.
    - dctoedt 3y ago
      Friend, your ad hominem comments in this thread are really billboarding your naivete. There are many things that Rayiner and I disagree about, but he's a brilliant lawyer who clerked for a federal circuit-court judge (one of the most-prestigious positions there is for new lawyers) and who has impressive techie credentials from before that. It's painfully obvious that you have little or no idea how judges go about deciding hard cases under American law — what they're required to do; what they're prohibited from doing; what they're given leeway to do if they deem it appropriate.
      - skhunted 3y ago
        Mentioning that he is a brilliant lawyer is, in Rayiner's opinion, a logical fallacy. You are engaging in what he thinks is bad reasoning in support of him. I think it is a fact that courts do sometimes use expert testimony. If that is not the case then strike that portion from my response to rayiner. It isn't needed to make my point which is that relying on expert advice is not an argumentative fallacy. It is strange that a brilliant lawyer and technologist would try to refute the citing of an expert's opinion by referencing a website. You can see the irony in that, right? You do realize that referring to an "authority" is not a valid way to advance the notion that referring to authorities is wrong, right?
skhunted 3y ago
Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense. The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their life for another. In this sense one can reasonably argue that one has a constitutional right to an abortion.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > The government doesn't have the right to force one person to risk their life for another. I guess you haven't served in the military?
  - skhunted 3y ago
    Serving in the military in time of war is not the same thing as "forcing someone to risk their life for another" as I meant it. I'll be more precise. The government does not have a right to force me to directly use my body or parts of it to save your life. Thus is the essence that some lawyers have argued and reasoned.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      > The government does not have a right to force me to directly use my body or parts of it to save your life. Thus is the essence that some lawyers have argued and reasoned. According to whom? And even if you believe that, why does that mean the constitution bakes in that belief?
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  I'm pro-choice but arguing the government doesn't have the right to limit medical procedures doesn't seem obvious to me.
  - skhunted 3y ago
    I didn’t claim this. My claim (later clarified) is that the government doesn’t have a right to force me to use my body to save another person’s life.