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.
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.
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?
This is what I wrote:
Highly intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined that states can’t ban abortions. Other equally intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined otherwise. Both sets of people wrote cogent opinions in support of their position. What is one to make of these facts? The Constitution says what you want it to say and you can write a well written, well reasoned argument supporting what you want it to say.
Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years.
I'm not advancing the notion that abortion is a right or that it isn't a right. I'm not making any legal arguments whatsoever except to say that legal experts disagree on matters of constitutional law. I'm not making an appeal to authority to advance my argument because I'm not saying that my conclusion:
Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years.
is supported by anyone with legal expertise. I'm just saying that there is no single objectively true way to decide what is or isn't a constitutional right as I see it. This is an opinion I have and I gave the reasons I have for this opinion. If someone want to refute this conclusion of mine they need to demonstrate that there is a single objectively true way to decide constitutional rights.
If I'm wrong please let me know what this single objectively true way is.
Referencing appeal to authority has nothing to do with my point. Referencing rayner's legal expertise is not germane to anything I wrote. His reasoning in response to what I wrote is quite bad.
It is a fact that referencing an "authority" to advance the notion that referencing authorities is a logical fallacy is bad reasoning.
A majority of current, GOP-appointed Supreme Court justices disagree with you.
… because I'm not saying that my conclusion:
And originalism is one way of interpreting the Constitution. There are other methods that other legal experts employ. Which is my only point. There is no single objectively correct way to interpret the Constitution. So it’s incorrect, for the most part, to say, “this is what the Constitution says/means”. One should say, “this is what i think it means.”
Likewise. Appealing to rayiner's expertise is extremely strange when it is done to support their belief that appealing to authority is logically invalid.
> You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Your response in suppoort of rayiner is to appeal to Rayiner's expertise.
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.
I guess you haven't served in the military?
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?