Roe v. Wade- A sensible discussion

[saveliberty]

Interesting how liberal POVs become settled law, while any law they oppose needs to be progressive.

 

[JoeB131]

They get around it by continuing to restrict abortion at the state level, in certain states, pushing the envelope on Roe in the process, to see what they can get away with.

Just like you do to the right to bear arms.

fyi

that makes you a hypocrite

True story

Except the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states that states can "regulate militias" and gun ownership.

 

[JoeB131]

Liberals made it clear long ago that rights can be regulated at the state level.

And so heavily regulated that they become an expensive privilege.

Don't get mad when the RR plays the same game using your rules.

Except the 14th Amendment states that certain things CAN'T be regulated at the state level, such as individual rights. And Roe falls into that category.

Much like the Bible, it really helps if you guys READ the constitution instead of worship it.

 

[saveliberty]

They get around it by continuing to restrict abortion at the state level, in certain states, pushing the envelope on Roe in the process, to see what they can get away with.

Just like you do to the right to bear arms.

fyi

that makes you a hypocrite

True story

Except the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states that states can "regulate militias" and gun ownership.

The Constitution grants ALL rights to the individual and states not specifically granted to the federal government. Learn the Constitution.

 

[JoeB131]

Super sensible this thread is. Not one can address the OPs question. What should be the prolife strategic plan in order to influence the scotus ruling?

Unrelenting support of life.

That's not a plan, it's a philosophy.

What's your plan?

 

[WillowTree]

Put em in jars and line em up in the garage like your homemade canned tomatos..

 

[saveliberty]

Liberals made it clear long ago that rights can be regulated at the state level.

And so heavily regulated that they become an expensive privilege.

Don't get mad when the RR plays the same game using your rules.

Except the 14th Amendment states that certain things CAN'T be regulated at the state level, such as individual rights. And Roe falls into that category.

Much like the Bible, it really helps if you guys READ the constitution instead of worship it.

If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.

Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?

 

[saveliberty]

[

If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.

Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?

Because government is so good at following that route. I just crushed your recent point. Who is losing again?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the first place, the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear a case which challenges it's opinion on Roe v. Wade. No court typically revisits a decision UNLESS there is a case which raises serious issues about it. That's true no matter who sits on the bench. Historically, it's just not likely to happen, regardless of who Obama or any other President nominates.

Secondly, the Congress has the power to craft legislation which addresses the Constitutional issues raised by Roe. It might not be easy, but it still is well within their Constitutional authorities. That they have never attempted to do so, even during times when the GOP had full control of the government, should be instructive to you. They've had ample opportunity to present a bill overthrowing the Court's decision since 1973 and have not offered up one, single, solitary bill to do so.

Why? Because they have no intention of doing it. Abortion is an issue which almost literally splits this country right down the middle, and even the GOP would not DARE piss off half the electorate over it. They'll blather and moan and milk the base for money, but they are not going to directly challenge Roe v. Wade. The political cost would be too high.

The bottom line is that Roe is here to stay for the foreseeable future. To continue talking about it does nothing more than feed the divide because it amounts to little more than raging against the machine.

The Supreme Court has already revisited Roe, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey the right to privacy was reaffirmed and abortion kept legal. The new standard of an ‘undue burden’ was established to prohibit the states from enacting an outright ban.

For those opposed to privacy rights, Casey was to be ‘The Case’ a conservative Court would use to overturn Roe.

It didn’t work out that way.

The right to privacy means placing limits on government authority, something the Court’s conservatives – not ideologues – understood.

I always thought it should have been left to the states to decide...like it was before the SC decision. I do believe the Founding Fathers would have agreed with me on this one.

It is left to the states to decide. When the states decide to violate their residents’ civil liberties, however, the courts have no other choice than to strike down measures passed by the states offensive to the Constitution.

This whole ‘abortion thing’ goes away if the states simply obey and follow the Constitution.

Just like you do to the right to bear arms.

fyi

that makes you a hypocrite

True story

Except the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states that states can "regulate militias" and gun ownership.

The Constitution grants ALL rights to the individual and states not specifically granted to the federal government. Learn the Constitution.

And you need to learn its case law.

 

[JoeB131]

[

If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.

Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?

Because government is so good at following that route. I just crushed your recent point. Who is losing again?

Can you give an example where the government actually did what you described? Or are you just blowing smoke.

When it comes to the issue of end of life things, that really ought to be up to the person effected. They make those kinds of decisions all the time. Do I bankrupt my family to get chemotherapy to live an extra six weeks? Some say yes, some say no, usually without any government involvement.

 

[GuyPinestra]

[

If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.

Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?

Nobody is arguing Joe, except you. I hope you guys go abort ALL your children. Pile 'em up like cordwood if that's what floats your boat.

Only God knows how many future MLK's and Einsteins you've managed to murder.

GOOD JOB!

 

[JoeB131]

[

If its an individual's right, then individuals hold them without regulation by the federal government too. The federal government regulates abortion. Basically they are trying to tell us when you're alive and when you aren't. That will extend to the end of life soon enough.

Why do you guys always go for the "slipper slope" argument when you can't win the argument you are having?

Nobody is arguing Joe, except you. I hope you guys go abort ALL your children. Pile 'em up like cordwood if that's what floats your boat.

Only God knows how many future MLK's and Einsteins you've managed to murder.

GOOD JOB!

Conversely, we might be eliminating future Jeffrey Dahmners... as unwanted children are more likely to be a problem further down the road.

Now, your sulking aside, fact is, abortion rates are higher in the Red States than the Blue states.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/shocked--or-not-new-data_b_374210.html

 

[saveliberty]

Who says the kids are unwanted?

 

[JoeB131]

Who says the kids are unwanted?

I would say that unless it's medical necessity, when someone has an abortion, they don't want kids. At least not at that point.

Now, if you want to suggest a bunch of tax breaks and other incentives to get women to put babies up for adoption, totally with you on that one. If you want to put in a bunch of policies to protect women's jobs and provide family and medical leave so that the ones on the fence decide to come down on the side of having the baby, no argument from me.

If you want to try to overturn Roe and force women to have babies they just don't want, even those of their rapists, I'm going to suggest you pound sand where the sun don't shine.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them

 

[JoeB131]

You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them

Not everyone thinks that fetuses are babies... in fact, this has never been the case in science, law or even religion.

No one supports "murder", they simply recognize the law as it is.

That person had his say when he shot his wad. At that point he has no say. It would be the same if he wanted an abortion and she wanted to keep it. Too bad,buddy, get ready for that wage garnishment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them

Not everyone thinks that fetuses are babies... in fact, this has never been the case in science, law or even religion.

No one supports "murder", they simply recognize the law as it is.

That person had his say when he shot his wad. At that point he has no say. It would be the same if he wanted an abortion and she wanted to keep it. Too bad,buddy, get ready for that wage garnishment.

See I was right you can't have a sensible discussion because you refuse to admit the unborn have no say in what affects them.

 

[JoeB131]

You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them

Not everyone thinks that fetuses are babies... in fact, this has never been the case in science, law or even religion.

No one supports "murder", they simply recognize the law as it is.

That person had his say when he shot his wad. At that point he has no say. It would be the same if he wanted an abortion and she wanted to keep it. Too bad,buddy, get ready for that wage garnishment.

See I was right you can't have a sensible discussion because you refuse to admit the unborn have no say in what affects them.

Since they haven't been born yet, they have no say.

As a practical matter, as long as they have to stay inside the other person, they really have no say.

Women will get abortions no matter what the law is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You can't have a sensible discussion when defenders of abortion refuse to admit the unborn are baby's
You can't have a sensible discussion supporting murder
You can't have a sensible discussion when one of the two people involved doesn't have a say about what affects them

Where it becomes difficult to have a sensible discussion is when those who consider abortion murder refuse to follow through with that position and outline how they plan to go about making the practice illegal.

Even if a future republican president manages to pack the Court with rabid anti-abortionists, there’s nothing such a Court could do without conflicting rulings from lower courts to review, and that’s very unlikely to happen because the courts will be following established case law – as they should.

The Supreme Court is the final appellate venue in the Federal court system, it can’t simply convene one day and issue edicts unilaterally.

And even if Griswold/Roe/Casey were to be overturned, many states would keep abortion legal. In order to be consistent in your position, you’d need to enact Federal legislation to ban abortion, which would then conflict with conservative dogma concerning ‘states’ rights.’

Abortion will forever be the issue that exposes the hypocrisy of the right.