> [Krimel] > Actually the Roe v Wade decision is a brilliant exercise in > jurisprudence and the line they drew was the age of viability. Prior > to that time, about 28 weeks, all of the rights accrue to the > mother's wishes; after that time the rights increasingly shift toward the > fetus
MP: LoL. Krimel the civics 'expert' strikes again. The simple truth is that Jurisprudence is NOT about drawing lines, it is about *reading* them. The court had no place to draw that line. Its not its job. Its OUR job, through law. The court may only read the lines drawn by law and judge whether they exceed the limits allowed those lines in the US Constitution. And while I'm at it, R v. W was not about mother's rights / fetus rights, it was about mother's rights / State rights. Most legal scholars (Ruth Ginsburg among them, btw) feel the opinion as written was really poorly done. Instead of settling the issue, it igninted a culture war. It did so precisely *because* it drew a line it had no place drawing. If R v. W had been about defining life under the Constitution, THAT might have been brilliant. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
