| | |
|
JaredBaumgart-FirstPaper 2 - 12 Feb 2008 - Main.JaredBaumgart
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | I think I'm going to discuss how abortion rights as granted by the court are an example of transcendental nonsense; by supporting the law with meaningless law talk, the court created a woman's right to abortion but left it on tenuous grounds. The reasons given for the law don't really add up to the court's conclusion, and the decision (and the right it provides) are open to attack. Lawyering is about changing the world with your words; the majority could not easily do that in regards to abortion, but they could use their power to invent a right and justify it with law talk. I've been thinking about this topic all weekend and I'm just starting to flush out how it will go, so take this as a very rough statement of what I'm looking to do. Also, I intend to stay away from analyzing Roe v Wade or other court decisions since the point of the class is not to read cases like we do in other boring classes. I'm focusing more on how/why the court's language and reasoning don't actually address justifications for women to have a choice, and the problems this creates.
I uploaded an outline I made on Word... I'm more comfortable with Word's format, but I'll try to keep a step by step update on the wiki.
| | | -- By JaredBaumgart - 11 Feb 2008 | |
<
< | I think I'm going to discuss how abortion rights as granted by the court are an example of transcendental nonsense; by supporting the law with meaningless law talk, the court created a woman's right to abortion but left it on tenuous grounds. The reasons given for the law don't really add up to the court's conclusion, and the decision (and the right it provides) are open to attack. Lawyering is about changing the world with your words; the majority could not easily do that in regards to abortion, but they could use their power to invent a right and justify it with law talk. I've been thinking about this topic all weekend and I'm just starting to flush out how it will go, so take this as a very rough statement of what I'm looking to do. Also, I intend to stay away from analyzing Roe v Wade or other court decisions since the point of the class is not to read cases like we do in other boring classes. I'm focusing more on how/why the court's language and reasoning don't actually address justifications for women to have a choice, and the problems this creates. | | | | |
<
< | Section I | >
> | What the Court Said: Myth Creation | | | Subsection A | |
<
< | Subsub 1 | >
> | What the Court Should Have Said: Myth Disintegration | | | Subsection B | |
<
< | | >
> | The Consequences: Myth Degeneration | | | Subsub 1 | | | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JaredBaumgart
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list | |
>
> |
| META FILEATTACHMENT | attachment="Eben_Paper_1.doc" attr="" comment="Rough Outline for Paper 1" date="1202793582" name="Eben_Paper_1.doc" path="C:\Documents and Settings\Jared Baumgart\My Documents\Eben Paper 1.doc" size="28672" stream="C:\Documents and Settings\Jared Baumgart\My Documents\Eben Paper 1.doc" user="Main.JaredBaumgart" version="1" |
|---|
|
|
|
JaredBaumgart-FirstPaper 1 - 11 Feb 2008 - Main.JaredBaumgart
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By JaredBaumgart - 11 Feb 2008
I think I'm going to discuss how abortion rights as granted by the court are an example of transcendental nonsense; by supporting the law with meaningless law talk, the court created a woman's right to abortion but left it on tenuous grounds. The reasons given for the law don't really add up to the court's conclusion, and the decision (and the right it provides) are open to attack. Lawyering is about changing the world with your words; the majority could not easily do that in regards to abortion, but they could use their power to invent a right and justify it with law talk. I've been thinking about this topic all weekend and I'm just starting to flush out how it will go, so take this as a very rough statement of what I'm looking to do. Also, I intend to stay away from analyzing Roe v Wade or other court decisions since the point of the class is not to read cases like we do in other boring classes. I'm focusing more on how/why the court's language and reasoning don't actually address justifications for women to have a choice, and the problems this creates.
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JaredBaumgart
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |