Roe v. Wade- A sensible discussion

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?

You assume that everyone takes the leftist view of "Fuck the rest of the country; we'll just get the courts to give us what we want. Long live the oligarchy!" No such thing.

The Supreme Court itself is a waiting game. Those people are geezers when they ARRIVE on the court, and they don't get any younger and fresher while sitting there. If one really feels the need to operate via the Supreme Court, one only has to wait for the membership to change.

As to the alleged hang-up of "needing a court case for them to decide on", the original Roe v. Wade decision stands as evidence that court cases are pathetically easy to invent. Give us the right timing and make-up of the Court, and I can guarantee you that the necessary court case will be found or manufactured.

Meanwhile, despite the worldview of leftists, the Supreme Court does NOT constitute all the power that exists in this country, and there ARE other avenues to pursue to get around them or to even limit their power, if necessary, and those are being explored.
 
A liberal scholar on Fresh Air said that even though he agreed that abortion should be legal, it was based on a poorly constructed legal theory, or something like that.

That's all I remember.
 
This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

I am against abortions. I do however think that one way to attack this abortion issue is to show that the abortion laws are sexist. The male is completely ignored in the law. The woman has a choice and the man does not. The fetus is shared by the input of the male and female therefore both should have a say if one decides to kill the baby.

The Court also reviewed that issue in Casey, and concluded that requiring spousal notification as a condition to obtaining an abortion constituted an undue burden:

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "[T]he marital couple is not an independent entity with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
 
A liberal scholar on Fresh Air said that even though he agreed that abortion should be legal, it was based on a poorly constructed legal theory, or something like that.

That's all I remember.

Poorly expressed, perhaps, but Roe is the progeny of Griswold, the ruling that recognized the right to privacy. Roe merely acknowledged that abortion is included in that realm of privacy, beyond the reach of the state.

But the principle of substantive due process, the legal foundation for Griswold/Roe/Casey, is well-established, and considered settled law for decades:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, at least since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, "[d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States."

It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
 
The Roe decision is now merely symbolic. It has become an anachronism. Roe could not be passed today. It would be a restriction on women's rights, as the right to abortion has been expanded. Who would support a law prohibiting abortion in the third trimester for any reason except the life of the mother? We've gone past that into post birth abortion.

Actually, if Roe hadn't been passed, most of the states would have legalized abortion on their own. Internationally, the laws have been going for more choice rights, not less.
 
This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

I see. So in this thread, "sensible" is defined as "we're right, and we win, and you can't do anything about it, NOW discuss". Got it.

More along the lines of "We've already got the law on our side, the mechanism for you to get your way doesn't exist, what do you suggest as a sane alternative?"
 
A liberal scholar on Fresh Air said that even though he agreed that abortion should be legal, it was based on a poorly constructed legal theory, or something like that.

That's all I remember.

Poorly expressed, perhaps, but Roe is the progeny of Griswold, the ruling that recognized the right to privacy. Roe merely acknowledged that abortion is included in that realm of privacy, beyond the reach of the state.

But the principle of substantive due process, the legal foundation for Griswold/Roe/Casey, is well-established, and considered settled law for decades:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, at least since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660-661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, "[d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States."

It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Hey, the guy was from Harvard. Or Princeton. Or one of those.
 
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.

I always thought it was up to the individual to decide. I do believe that individual freedom is what the founding fathers were after.
 
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.

They have no say with what happens to them? And you support dick suckers top have a right to be immoral and in a system called marriage? You're a stupid son of a bitch.

They have no say because, frankly, a woman can get an illegal abortion just as easily as a legal one, and the law really can't touch her. No jury would convict, no prosecutor would file charges, no witness would testify.

Oh, not see how gays are being "immoral" just because you have sexual hangups.

Immoral is denying a girl a liver transplant because you want to make a bigger profit.
 
I am against abortions. I do however think that one way to attack this abortion issue is to show that the abortion laws are sexist. The male is completely ignored in the law. The woman has a choice and the man does not. The fetus is shared by the input of the male and female therefore both should have a say if one decides to kill the baby.

The male is not ignored by this law.

He's completely free to rid himself of any unwanted fetuses in his body, just like the woman is.
 
And I have yet to get single leftist to step up and explain WHY they claim to want it to be "rare". What's wrong with it, that they allegedly don't want it to happen? And if it's so wrong that they really do want it to happen as little as possible, why are they so frantic to keep it from EVER being restricted by law in any way, shape, or form?

I mean, when I think something is bad and should happen as seldom as possible, I'm just fine with making it illegal. What's the problem here?

Actually, most of the leftists who explained it to you probalby have on "ignore"...

I'd like to see it happen less often for the same reason I'd like to see there be less open heart surgery like my brother had a couple weeks ago. Because it is an unpleasent procedure that is largely avoidable with the proper precautions.

But I don't want to see heart surgery or abortion denied to people who need them because some asshole thinks his magic sky man said so.
 
This is not a discussion where we want to see pictures of fetuses in any condition, or screaming about what God wants, or doing moronic Godwin Law comparision between Nazis and abortionists. You guys have plenty of other thread for that level of crazy.

This is a sensible discussion on Roe V. Wade, and the improbability of it being overturned. Because honestly, as long as SCOTUS upholds Roe, everything else is sort of meaningless in this discussion.

Right now, you only have three justices (Thomas, Scalia and Alito) who would vote to overturn Roe.

You have four justices who will uphold it under any circumstances (Sotomayor, Kagen, Brier and Ginsburg), along with another who has upheld it under most circumstances (Kennedy).

Then you have Chief Justice Roberts, who would probably uphold it, because he's not the kind of guy who rocks the boat. He saved ObamaCare and it's unlikely he'd release this kind of chaos on the country.

On top of that, any vacancies in the next four years WILL be filled by President Obama.

So without your usual nonsense of abortion is murder and such, please let us know how you guys plan to get around this little problem.

I see. So in this thread, "sensible" is defined as "we're right, and we win, and you can't do anything about it, NOW discuss". Got it.

More along the lines of "We've already got the law on our side, the mechanism for you to get your way doesn't exist, what do you suggest as a sane alternative?"

That would be refreshing.
 
What the fuck makes you think that YOU, of all people, are qualified to participate in any "reasonable" discussion? Who the hell are you kidding?

So you're admitting you can't meet the challenge, then.

Next.


I'm saying you have proven yourself unqualified, and apparently uninterested, in anything like a "reasonable discussion" on any topic. Is that clear enough for you?
 
Is this treatment unlimited? What about someone who doesn't follow doctor's advice to control their heart issues? What about the second abortion? Third?
 
Is this treatment unlimited? What about someone who doesn't follow doctor's advice to control their heart issues? What about the second abortion? Third?

It's very unlikely that one would need a third. After the second, the body starts producing them spontaneously.

I still remember working as a secretary in a fertility clinic, and quitting when they decided to help a woman conceive a child because she'd had two abortions, and then three miscarriages because her body had been trained to eject embryos.

You want to give a helpless baby to someone like that, that's your business, but I'm not going to be party to it.
 
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.

I always thought it was up to the individual to decide. I do believe that individual freedom is what the founding fathers were after.

An anarchy where there are no laws and individuals "decide" to do whatever they please to each other?

Yes, I believe YOU are stupid enough to think that's what the Founding Fathers were aiming for. You believe a lot of shit.
 
Is this treatment unlimited? What about someone who doesn't follow doctor's advice to control their heart issues? What about the second abortion? Third?

It's very unlikely that one would need a third. After the second, the body starts producing them spontaneously.

I still remember working as a secretary in a fertility clinic, and quitting when they decided to help a woman conceive a child because she'd had two abortions, and then three miscarriages because her body had been trained to eject embryos.

You want to give a helpless baby to someone like that, that's your business, but I'm not going to be party to it.

So the limit is two?
 
Is this treatment unlimited? What about someone who doesn't follow doctor's advice to control their heart issues? What about the second abortion? Third?

It's very unlikely that one would need a third. After the second, the body starts producing them spontaneously.

I still remember working as a secretary in a fertility clinic, and quitting when they decided to help a woman conceive a child because she'd had two abortions, and then three miscarriages because her body had been trained to eject embryos.

You want to give a helpless baby to someone like that, that's your business, but I'm not going to be party to it.

So the limit is two?

As far as I know, you can legally get as many abortions as you like, and I sincerely doubt any pro-abortion zealots who have pushed through taxpayer funding for abortions would see any reason to limit the number in that regard. It's only nature that seems to think killing one's young in the womb is a bad idea.

And mind you, I said it's UNLIKELY that one would need a third abortion. It's not impossible.
 
I was just wondering if this is a boundless entitlement or common sense enters at some point. I note no liberal has answered in any fashion.
 

Forum List

Back
Top