I didn't open the insult door. You don't seriously think calling me naive was some sort of compliment do you?
I'll try again.
A litmus test with respect to justices would be one in which you question the judges positions on the issues, and then choose or do not choose them based on their position on the issues.
Roe vs. Wade is an issue.
Therefore, if one says they will not choose a judge based on a litmus test, then they are saying they will not choose a judge based on their opinion of Roe vs. Wade.
Bush in effect said he would not gauge a judges position on Roe vs. Wade as a criteria in his choice of judge.
He could have more specifically addressed it by saying he would not choose a judge based on their Roe vs. Wade opinion, but by saying he would not choose them based on a litmus test, he also included a myriad of other issues by which justices are chosen, including Roe vs. Wade.
Now as to the specificity of the phrase "like to overturn", neither candidate voiced their personal opinions on the matter. Kerry, nor Bush stated what their personal feelings were on the issue, and quite honestly I don't feel it's relevant to the discussion, what is relevant is whom they will choose that will interpret the constitution. It's fairly obvious in both their cases that they would both "like" a woman not to have an abortion, Kerry because he is a Catholic, and Bush because he is Pro-Life.
I would personally "like" women not to have abortions, instead choosing adoption as an option were available and not offensive to the woman (In the case of a rape I can easily understand), but I am pro-choice in that I believe it is ultimately their decision to make.
Quote:
Secondly, is a person's right to bodily integrity not included in your constitution? A person's right to decide how their body is used is not covered in your constitution?? So you can force a person to use their body in a way that they do not want to (in this case, for pregnancy)? I think that this is a constitutional matter and that judges have a responsibility to protect a woman's right to bodily integrity.
Can you commit suicide on Canada? You can't here. That certainly would fall within the realm of "bodily integrity" would it not? Unfortunately the right of a person to do what they want with themselves is not specifically addressed in our constitution, and touching on abortion also involves at some point the life of another human being. Whether that life begins at the point of conception or when the child is born, or perhaps somewhere in between is of course a matter for philosophical, scientific and religious debate. In fact that issue is relatively vague in our constitution. The relevant portions cited in Roe v. Wade were personal privacy and due process, neither or which directly address the issue, but taken in conjunction provide a reasonably solid ground.
Login
