Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Abortion Case Heads to the Supreme Court

Expand Messages
  • Warren Ockrassa
    ... Heh heh. Is that really so new, though? The toe the line part I mean. I haven t been actively conscious of Supreme Court and other nominees for more than
    Message 1 of 6 , May 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On May 24, 2005, at 1:13 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:

      >> From: Warren Ockrassa <warren@...>
      >> Yes -- once again there are exceptions which suggest that laws, which
      >> can't be created in such a way as to take into account all
      >> exceptions, can in enough circumstances cause sufficient suffering to
      >> lead to the conclusion that it would be best to eliminate the law in
      >> question rather than rewrite it.
      >> Or, better still, not make the law in the first place.
      > That's what judges used to be for, until the feds started making them
      > toe some sort of line.

      Heh heh. Is that really so new, though? The "toe the line" part I mean.
      I haven't been actively conscious of Supreme Court and other nominees
      for more than about a quarter century, and based on that I can't really
      judge history's facts, of course. I would be very surprised, however,
      to learn that this is a comparatively recent trend.

      [Robert here]

      >>> I like to think the world is moving away from situations that allow
      >>> this kind of child abuse to occur. I'm probably wrong.
      >> It's being forced under wraps, I think. That makes it *more*
      >> dangerous and *more* toxic.
      > I think it used to be much further under wraps in midcentury than it
      > is now. Today's willingness to speak up about such things has helped
      > enormously.

      Well, except in cases where false accusations are made and the innocent
      are pilloried, or cases where -- if there's a risk a kid might talk --
      murder is done to keep witnesses silent. The whole issue is just ugly
      and ... well, horrible.

      Though on reflection, yeah, it does seem like there's more willingness
      to investigate, to prosecute, to attempt to address pain and heal
      minds. That's definitely an improvement.

      >> And it is these very thorny issues that I simply cannot accept are
      >> reconcilable with something so facile as judicial fiat. A simple
      >> definition of "human" does not exist, "human rights" are extremely
      >> plastic terms of convenience -- nothing more -- and one man's murder
      >> is another man's abortion of a child of incest.
      > Man's?!?!?!?!

      Or woman's, yes. I'm kind of a stickler about some things. I know
      English can be seen as inherently sexist in dealing with impersonal
      pronouns, but that's the way the language is constructed. So if the
      alternative is either to use a grammatically incorrect word ("their" or
      the ghastly "hir" in place of "his", f'rinstance), or a tortuous
      formulation that is inclusive but too wordy ("his/her"), I'll probably
      go with the impersonal pronoun.

      Surely you know I was paraphrasing the old saw "One man's meat..."

      >> There is no way that any kind of law can ever be written to deal with
      >> these kinds of issues.
      > There is, but it can't deal in absolutes and excluded middles.

      Right -- I think that's what I was suggesting. It can't be inclusive,
      it can't handle exceptions, and it would -- I think -- exacerbate
      suffering. Not much of an argument in favor of trying to produce any
      such law. :\

      Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
      Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.