CDZ Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, May 24, 2019.

  1. jwoodie
    Online

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    11,903
    Thanks Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,042
    Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."

    Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. sartre play
    Online

    sartre play Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    3,436
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,423
    NO.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. Crixus
    Offline

    Crixus Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    18,554
    Thanks Received:
    1,682
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    BFE Texas.
    Ratings:
    +11,183

    Yes and for the most part I agree with you on how it should work. But it should not be given to the states to decide when it can be done. In new your a woman can kill the child up until birth if the mother is stressed out. That’s a fake argument and people should be offended it’s even used. Congress needs to make a law, define what abortion is, when it can be done and when it can’t.
     
  4. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    54,331
    Thanks Received:
    6,185
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +23,066
    Can you say the same for segregation in that case?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball Unobtanium Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    53,402
    Thanks Received:
    11,365
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +33,183
    Yes...Even a lot of lefty lawyers agree that the decision is really bad law.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    1,031
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +4,478
    In this day and age when contraceptives are widely available and morning after pills are too, it's hard to justify terminating a human fetus except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's health. It bothers me when so many people trumpet the woman's right to choose, ignoring the rights of the fetus. If she chose to have unprotected sex then the responsibility that both parents have to the unborn really should be paramount.

    IMHO, Roe v Wade was too much of a legal stretch to say the right to privacy means you also have a right to an abortion. Some say it shouldn't be a state issue, but I think that it for sure should not be a federal issue.
     
  7. Leo123
    Offline

    Leo123 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2017
    Messages:
    5,309
    Thanks Received:
    737
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Ratings:
    +4,329
    I always thought the 'right to privacy' was a bad argument because that right was suspended when the woman accepted semen into her vagina. What is growing inside her is not hers alone. The court took away the man's rights. You can bet one thing though, IF a baby is born, she will expect the man to provide support. He will have 0 rights.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    109,369
    Thanks Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +27,533
    Actually, the 14th Amendment very clearly protects individual rights over states rights, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. This was it's whole purpose.

    What Roe v. Wade did was recognize reality. The abortion laws on the books were unworkable and routinely ignored at the time. Women walked into their doctor's offices, got abortions performed, the Doctor wrote something else down on the chart, everyone went home happy.

    The only time the laws were "enforced" was if an inept doctor killed or injured his patients.

    What the justices didn't count on was the Evagelicals glomming onto the the issue after Segregation wasn't selling anymore.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    109,369
    Thanks Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +27,533
    Yup. And that's how it should work.

    When men have to deal with all the medical consequences of pregnancy, then they get more of a say.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. JoeB131
    Offline

    JoeB131 Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    109,369
    Thanks Received:
    9,081
    Trophy Points:
    2,055
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +27,533
    "Hey, ladies, if you didn't pump your body full of artificial hormones every day on the hope that you might have sex... then you totally deserve an unwanted pregnancy you can't afford!"

    Fetuses aren't people, therefore they have no rights.

    No, it had to become a federal issue because making it a state issue just amplified the inequities of it. A poor woman in Alabama was stuck with a back-alley quack to get her abortion, while an affluent women in Alabama could drive up to New York and get her pregnancy terminated.

    You see, the thing you anti-abortion types don't get is that there just as many abortions going on before Roe v. Wade as after. Abortion laws in 1973 were kind of like prostitution laws are now... they were on the books, everyone ignored them.

    How do we know this?

    The birth rate didn't drop in 1973.

    [​IMG]

    While it DID drop in 1965 when birth control pills came on the market, there was not a significant drop after Roe.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page