Trolling the deaf

[Dinner]

He was a communist and a terrorist (It hardly does any justice to his memory to deny either of those things) but he seemed to have changed his heart in prison and came out a better person than he went in.

No, he was not a terrorist as a terrorist attacks civilian targets while government and military targets are legitament targets of war. Learn the difference. Also, the only reason they accepted help from communists is because all the western governments supported the racist regime so they took help from the only people who offered it.

[Dinner]

I was always under the impression that Mandela was the reason that the end of apartheid did not result in significant retaliation against whites and that Mandela was the driving force behind reconciliation and a multi-ethnic South Africa.

Indeed he was.

[-Jrabbit]

Sorry, I misread your post. Was kind of skimming.

I thoroughly approve of this post.
Reg's ability to admit minor errors is quite refreshing.

[Al B. Sure!]

Actually there isn't a democratic way in which to stop abortion; it's been sanctioned by a distinctly undemocratic institution.

No if there was more opposition to it, presidents would be getting elected on the promise of installing pro-life judges and it would end. I don't know what size of pro-life majority you would need for this (certainly more opposition than now) but it could happen. It's indirect but popular opinion plays a role in the Supreme Court.

[Ban Kenobi]

They only need majorities in 38 states to amend the constitution and ban abortion.

[notyoueither]

If banning abortion were desirable to enough people they could always amend the US Consitution. Fat chance of that, but it is possible.

Doh! Late to the party.

[Aeson]

Actually there isn't a democratic way in which to stop abortion; it's been sanctioned by a distinctly undemocratic institution.

It's not like the religious right are not allowed to vote. They just don't have enough votes to get it done. (That includes amendment, which is obviously difficult to get, but possible with enough popular support ... and/or voting in Presidents and representatives who will put people on SCOTUS that agree with their viewpoint of how to interpret the Constitution.)

Doh! Late to the party.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're right. There are peaceful outlets to protest and oppose abortion. Black South Africans could just protest and vote to end apartheid... oh wait.

A majority of people here in Texas would vote to eradicate abortion. Yet, it cannot legally be done. Do Texans have the legal right to remove clinics through force?

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not like the religious right are not allowed to vote. They just don't have enough votes to get it done. (That includes amendment, which is obviously difficult to get, but possible with enough popular support ... and/or voting in Presidents and representatives who will put people on SCOTUS that agree with their viewpoint of how to interpret the Constitution.)

So it's ok to kill people provided they are in the minority? What happens if the minority/majority should flip and you end up on the other end? Is it ok to kill the minority because they have insufficient votes to change the laws? Or should the laws offer legal protection to everyone?

That's the debate here. Prolifers argue that the laws which are in place protecting everyone should also protect unborn as they do born children. If unborn children could vote do you think that abortion would be legal? It's exactly the same situation as with apartheid that denied legal representation to a segment of the population deemed to not be legal persons.

[Ban Kenobi]

A majority of people here in Texas would vote to eradicate abortion. Yet, it cannot legally be done. Do Texans have the legal right to remove clinics through force?

Texas is not a sovereign country so no.

[Ben Kenobi]

Texas is not a sovereign country so no.

Constitutionally, nullification is a right that belongs to the states.

[Ban Kenobi]

In your imagination maybe.

[Ben Kenobi]

In your imagination maybe.

If a state wants to extend the rights of their citizens further than the federal government? I don't see why if Texas wants to protect unborn babies, why they constitutionally cannot nullify federal laws barring them.

[Ban Kenobi]

States can't nullify Supreme Court decisions or federal laws. If they could the federal government would be nothing more than a formality like the UN.

[Aeson]

So it's ok to kill people provided they are in the minority? What happens if the minority/majority should flip and you end up on the other end? Is it ok to kill the minority because they have insufficient votes to change the laws? Or should the laws offer legal protection to everyone?

That's the debate here. Prolifers argue that the laws which are in place protecting everyone should also protect unborn as they do born children. If unborn children could vote do you think that abortion would be legal? It's exactly the same situation as with apartheid that denied legal representation to a segment of the population deemed to not be legal persons.

The debate here (my post, which you quoted, and the post I quoted) is whether or not there is a legal outlet by which it could be done. I'm not interested in your moral tangent. It clearly is possible for voters in the US to change the applicable laws (and/or interpretations) via a democratic process.