Roe-Wade Woman’s right of choice

[yodaddy]

Originally Posted by Pipe_Dream

"Drain on the economy?"
Life begins at conception according to scientific consensus. Every life is precious, even an unwanted life.

Indeed. That "cluster of cells" are human cells, and are developing into a functioning human, not a turnip. But then again, the turnip potential could explain the mental deficiencies attendant with liberal politics.

[bgreene]

Michigan - 70 % of pop in favor of choice . Yet the Republicans want to impose the strictest anti abortion rules in our nation - no abortion even rape and incest .
Disgusting

[scook]

That's a bit of an exaggeration - it assumes that there would be no modification to the 1931 law on their books. It seems likely that some modification would be forthcoming.

[bgreene]

The MAJORITY of Americans ( 65-70 % consistently ) DO NOT want Roe-Wade overturned.

The Republicans under Trump stacked the Supreme Court to over ride the Will of Americans.

This is FACT.

[Destroyer]

Originally Posted by bgreene

The MAJORITY of Americans ( 65-70 % consistently ) DO NOT want Roe-Wade overturned.

The Republicans under Trump stacked the Supreme Court to over ride the Will of Americans.

This is FACT.

The MAJORITY of Americans do not understand the damage done to our nation by Roe and later by Casey where 7 justices cut out of whole cloth something the Constitution doesn't say. There is no Constitutional right to abortion since nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the word abortion, yet in Roe the justices made their own interpterion of what they thought the Constitution said, rather than what is actually says.

By reversing Roe v Wade it will correct this very grievous error and the downright sloppy (SCOTUS words not mine) judgement that Federalized abortion and took the right of self determination out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the Federal Government. Reversing Roe will restore Democracy by letting people in each state vote on whether or not they want abortion to be legal or illegal in their state. That's called Democracy.

Understand, I am not debating on the morality of abortion. That's a discussion for another day. I'm simple showing why reversing Roe is a good thing for the SCOTUS to do since it corrects a horrible error and overreach of authority by a previous court.

.

[bgreene]

[QUOTE=Destroyer;249487]The MAJORITY of Americans do not understand the damage done to our nation by Roe and later by Casey where 7 justices cut out of whole cloth something the Constitution doesn't say. There is no Constitutional right to abortion since nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the word abortion, yet in Roe the justices made their own interpterion of what they thought the Constitution said, rather than what is actually says.

By reversing Roe v Wade it will correct this very grievous error and the downright sloppy (SCOTUS words not mine) judgement that Federalized abortion and took the right of self determination out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the Federal Government. Reversing Roe will restore Democracy by letting people in each state vote on whether or not they want abortion to be legal or illegal in their state. That's called Democracy.

Understand, I am not debating on the morality of abortion. That's a discussion for another day. I'm simple showing why reversing Roe is a good thing for the SCOTUS to do since it corrects a horrible error and overreach of authority by a previous court.

WE THE PEOPLE DO UNDERSTAND and do NOT want this LAW of the land changed.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supr...ry?id=84468131

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mas...abortion-draft

[bgreene]

What you likely DONT KNOW ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF UPHOLDING ROE-WADE

FACTS - NOT OPINION from Constitutional Lawyer:

…”There is no stated right to privacy in the US Constitution. None. The document is silent on the issue.

In Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court found that the right to privacy can be inferred through various provisions of the US Constitution, ie 4th amendment (warrant required for searches), 5th amendment (right to remain silent), etc. As such, the Court held that a woman has a right to privacy regarding her body and pregnancy up and until viability of the fetus. (I am aware that this highly simplifies abortion law.)

SO - If Roe v. Wade is overturned, not only will it overturn abortion rights, it also will overturn privacy rights because there is no guaranteed right to privacy anywhere in the US Constitution.

Therefore, if you think overturning this decision doesn’t concern you, and the issue is solely about abortion, you are incorrect.

It concerns everyone ! “

[scook]

First, what you refer to is absolutely a legal opinion. There is no stated right to privacy, per se, but yes, it can be reasonably inferred from the 4th and 5th amendments, where it’s a reasonable application.

Your argument is what the left has come up with to discredit the decision. The problem with the argument is that it conflates the “right” to kill babies (if they aren’t yet viable outside the womb) with unreasonable search and seizure and self incrimination. A logical progression of that reasoning is that when grandpa gets to where he needs help getting his food, maybe bathing and dressing (even though he’s still a vital source of wisdom for his adoring grandchildren), if he’s too much trouble, kill him.

The destruction of reasonable privacy protection by this ruling is an argument by liberals to try to gain support for resistance - fomenting panic in their base to motivate them.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

First, what you refer to is absolutely a legal opinion. There is no stated right to privacy, per se, but yes, it can be reasonably inferred from the 4th and 5th amendments, where it’s a reasonable application.

Your argument is what the left has come up with to discredit the decision. The problem with the argument is that it conflates the “right” to kill babies (if they aren’t yet viable outside the womb) with unreasonable search and seizure and self incrimination. A logical progression of that reasoning is that when grandpa gets to where he needs help getting his food, maybe bathing and dressing (even though he’s still a vital source of wisdom for his adoring grandchildren), if he’s too much trouble, kill him.

The destruction of reasonable privacy protection by this ruling is an argument by liberals to try to gain support for resistance - fomenting panic in their base to motivate them.

Nope - it’s fact specific to the constitutional data

[scook]

You sound like a kid who’s trying to impress people by using bigger words than he understands. Constitutional data, what’s that?

How is it not opinion (are you aware that what your constitutional expert wrote is actually called a legal opinion) to conclude that overturning one ruling which was based on certain inferences will automatically keep those inferences from ever being used again in more reasonable applications?

You are punching well above your weight, making these proclamations. You are, as has been pointed out repeatedly by several others, swallowing the liberal doctrine without critical thinking.