CDZ Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[jwoodie]

comparing one thing to another is a crutch used by people who can't argue things on the merits.

It's called an "analogy."

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Half Baked Originalists

* Mind Your Own Bees Wax *

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."

One becomes a citizen at birth . For equal protection ( that includes reprisals for violations of a wright to life ) any and all must be born . A state is comprised of and created for citizens . If one is not a citizen or qualify for equal protection by having been born , they can go fuck themselves .

The wright to privacy is based in that a fetus is without constitutional protections and is the private property of the mother .

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.

The 9th amendment granting any wrights not enumerated in the constitution to the people ; the tenth amendment follows a secondary granting any wrights not enumerated in the constitution to states and or to the people .

It is pathetic that anti-federalists , become statists rather than anti-statists , when it comes to individual liberty .

 

[jwoodie]

One becomes a citizen at birth . For equal protection ( that includes reprisals for violations of a wright to life ) any and all must be born . A state is comprised of and created for citizens . If one is not a citizen or qualify for equal protection by having been born , they can go fuck themselves .

Do you also apply this "logic" to all non-citizens, or just the unborn?

The wright to privacy is based in that a fetus is without constitutional protections and is the private property of the mother .

Have you heard of the 13th Amendment?

The 9th amendment granting any wrights not enumerated in the constitution to the people ; the tenth amendment follows a secondary granting any wrights not enumerated in the constitution to states and or to the people .

You completely misapprehend the entire Constitution: It does not grant rights, since these are inherently possessed by the people. Instead, it defines the structure of the federal government and places limits on its powers. The 9th Amendment prohibits additions to those powers simply because they haven't been specifically proscribed. The 10th Amendment speaks for itself.

"It is pathetic that anti-federalists , become statists rather than anti-statists , when it comes to individual liberty."

What is pathetic is your use of the term "statist," which does not refer to the 50 States, but to centralized (i.e., federal) government. Ironically, by advocating federal control of the abortion issue, you are the statist.

P.S. There is no "W" in "right."

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Literacy Matters "

* Equal Basic Requirements *

Do you also apply this "logic" to all non-citizens, or just the unborn?

Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe V Wade and the entire judgment is surmised in this statement from him , " Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. " ; however , none will not find that in the public lexicon from pro-choice institutions , no matter how often it is emphasized .

It is my assertion that the country of origin for illegal migrants is responsible for issuing a retort or reprise for civil liberties violations of its citizens traveling abroad , as the sojourners are not legally within the jurisdiction of the foreign government , and that includes their children who should receive the citizenship of the mother .

The country of origin may request assistance from the foreign government for investigation , or extradition or prosecution , that that occurs by request and is not an obligation to comply .

* Reiterating The Point *

Have you heard of the 13th Amendment?

Are you alleging that slaves were not born ?

* Argumentative About Non Contradictions *

You completely misapprehend the entire Constitution: It does not grant rights, since these are inherently possessed by the people. Instead, it defines the structure of the federal government and places limits on its powers. The 9th Amendment prohibits additions to those powers simply because they haven't been specifically proscribed. The 10th Amendment speaks for itself.

First the term proscribed means to prohibit ; while you intent appears to be prescribed .

The 9th amendment indicates that just because wrights are not enumerated does not mean the wrights are not inherent and the 9th amendment precedes the 10th .

* Hardly A Failed Neologism *

What is pathetic is your use of the term "statist," which does not refer to the 50 States, but to centralized (i.e., federal) government. Ironically, by advocating federal control of the abortion issue, you are the statist.

There are federalists who support federal control over individual affairs and there are statists who support state control over individual affairs ; thus , pretending that a terms do not exist to describe both is nonsense , especially to those who espouse individualism .

My position is pro-choice , that is anti-federalist , anti-statists , individualist ; thus how have you concluded otherwise ?

* Normed Vector Space *

P.S. There is no "W" in "right."

A law wright creates wrights , not rights .

The allusion to rights is pretentious tripe - see legal positivism .

 

[martybegan]

Who is forcing someone to have a baby? If you voluntarily have sex, then you should know there are consequences.

IF the father had any rights, he too should share in the consequences, but since he does not, then it's her body, her baby and her problem. IF the father has a say in whether or not a woman has a child and if she does, he provides the home, money and support should the mother not want the child, then the man would have accountability.

That's nice, buddy.... let me know when you get all the deadbeat dads we have out there now before you talk about creating any more.

Poor people could be helped by charities. Again, if someone truly believes in it, they can spend their $$ on it.

The simple fact is this is an issue the Constitution leaves to the States, for whatever issues that creates.

Well, no, it really doesn't... issue was decided 45 years ago with Roe.

One law for the country defeats the purpose of federalism.

Awesome. Federalism is a stupid idea, anyway. No place in the modern world.

The less power the states have, the better.

And your dismissal of the numbers of people who disagree with you just shows you can't back your argument with facts and reason, and have to resort to inflated made up numbers. It's like that stupid gun control report all over again. You lock into some false numbers or narrative and refuse to let it go because it backs up your false version of reality.

Or the numbers I cite are accepted, as opposed to propaganda... otherwise, you get into arguing over 2 million imaginary gun uses to stop crime.

When Abortion was Illegal (and Deadly): Seattle's Maternal Death Toll - Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project

If abortion support was 70-30 in states like Alabama, how do the keep electing people who want to ban it?

Centuries of inbreeding?

Realistically, most folks have no idea who they are sending to their state capitals, because usually, these people have very little effect on their lives. Most people couldn't name their state rep on a bet.

The issue was not decided. We are still fighting over it. As per Clauswitz, what we have is a form of cease-fire, because the cause of the conflict has not been settled.

Your disdain for federalism is just a sign of your need to make everyone conform to your way of living/thinking. It is a clear sign of your narcissism.

"Accepted".

Sorry but studies like this are too easy to manipulate to make them give the data a person wants.

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

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.

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.

Can you to show where the right to terminate a pregnancy is spelled out in the 14th Amendment? It's extremely unlikely that you can. And falling back the the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade doesn't apply since it was law made by the court.

I'll wait over here while you try.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

Can you to show where the right to terminate a pregnancy is spelled out in the 14th Amendment? It's extremely unlikely that you can. And falling back the the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade doesn't apply since it was law made by the court.

I'll wait over here while you try.

You can't give much credibility to a constitutional amendment that was illegally ratified anyway.

 

[jwoodie]

You can't give much credibility to a constitutional amendment that was illegally ratified anyway.

Pick and choose your Amendments, eh?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" States Of Citizens For Citizens "

* Political Strain Of Logic *

Can you to show where the right to terminate a pregnancy is spelled out in the 14th Amendment? It's extremely unlikely that you can. And falling back the the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade doesn't apply since it was law made by the court. I'll wait over here while you try.

Blackmun wrote the supporting majority opinion for roe v wade , what do you believe he meant by the following statement ?
"Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

Can you show where a fetus is a citizen , or that a fetus has been born that is a requirement for equal protection ?

Can you show where a fetus has any constitutional entitlements , period , without meeting a criteria of birth for equal protection as per us 14th amendment ?

The decision of roe v wade deduced that post viability the standard of parturition was relative and states may proscribe abortion in the third trimester .


* Seeking Self Validation of Literally Waking Up From A Dirt Nap By Bequeathing Affliction *

Flatulence on this issue from the anti-nomain hypocrites of the religious reich arises in the form of a delusion that an implementation of its histrionic demands will somehow validates its delusions that an after life , a chance for eternal life , being born again , reincarnation are all literal rather than metaphors with a literal meaning of passing on ones genetic identity through ones offspring .

The third trimester psychopathic villain is used as a histrionic excuse by the religious reich to outlaw third trimester and second trimester abortions that occur due to fitness , where individuals become challenged with fetal abnormalities , genetic survival and quality of life .

Individuals are responsible for their own genetic continuance , not a state ; a state is concerned with issuing a retort or reprise for a violation of rights entitled to citizens or to those entitled to equal protection for having met a minimum requirement that is birth .

 

[Old Man Grumbles]

As I said, using Roe v Wade decision was not acceptable. There is no right to privacy, or abortion, spelled out in the 14th Amendment. It is ridiculous to even propose it is so. Had SCOTUS gone the other way in their decision, there would have been a simple remedy had the Court not chosen to make rights were none exist. All that needed to happen after the Court ruling against, is to have the US Congress due it's duty and pass legislation legalizing abortion (which they haven't done to my knowledge).

Now as to your fetus questions. I'm not saying there is any right in the Constitution covering them. So I won't waste time responding to them.

If, by chance, you are placing me in the category in which you blustered along with generalizations, don't - unless or until you understand where I stand on the subject of abortion.

 

[Picaro]

It was a bad law, with bad arguments. Even the woman who was 'Roe' in the case later changed her mind. The liberal view, that it should allow a woman to abort for medical reasons and rape should be allowed, whatever the reasoning for banning it otherwise, and it should be Federally enforced, just to avoid the faddism and pogroms that will sweep a given political election cycle at any time and place. The terms 'constitutional' and 'unconstitutional' don't have any real meaning any more outside of sloganeering and propaganda, judges decide law on personal whims and political biases these days, not legal precedent and constitutionality, so no need to keep the pretenses.

 

[JoeB131]

Your disdain for federalism is just a sign of your need to make everyone conform to your way of living/thinking. It is a clear sign of your narcissism.

Naw, it's a clear sign of pragmatism.

Why do you think State Governments are so corrupt - a lot more corrupt than the Federal Government?

Because no one is paying that much attention to them.

The last thing you want is to give these Amateurs more power. They generally mess up even the little things we let them control, letting them control something actually important like reproductive rights? No thank you.

Sorry but studies like this are too easy to manipulate to make them give the data a person wants.

Or you can just apply common sense. We have 96,000 medical deaths every year with ALL the safeguards we have in place to protect patients. Now, once you take away quality control, professionalism and any fear of a lawsuit, what do you think happens?

Yup, exactly what is happening in the Philippines, RIGHT NOW. Exactly what happened in America before Roe v. Wade.

You guys aren't going to save one fetus. You'll end up maiming a bunch of women... and I sometimes wonder if that's the point for some of you. Scratch a pro-lifer, find a misogynist.

Me, I don't want to live the live-action version of "A Handmaid's Tale". It was painful enough to read.

 

[JoeB131]

Can you to show where the right to terminate a pregnancy is spelled out in the 14th Amendment? It's extremely unlikely that you can. And falling back the the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade doesn't apply since it was law made by the court.

I don't have to, SCOTUS did.

Again, if you want to claim that Roe was wrongly decided, then you have to claim Griswald was wrongly decided as well.

 

[Picaro]

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. .

They can't concede the obvious, and it's obvious why. Any sort of self-indulgence and sociopathic narcissism is to be encouraged and promoted and pandered to.

 

[JoeB131]

It was a bad law, with bad arguments. Even the woman who was 'Roe' in the case later changed her mind.

So what? She was a weak minded creature who pretty much did whatever she was told, which is why she needed an abortion to start with.

The terms 'constitutional' and 'unconstitutional' don't have any real meaning any more outside of sloganeering and propaganda, judges decide law on personal whims and political biases these days, not legal precedent and constitutionality, so no need to keep the pretenses.

Or they make rulings based on practicality. The delusion the pro-life side has is that abortions didn't happen before 1973. They happened all the time, all the courts did was change it from an illegal common practice to a legal common practice.

 

[Picaro]

It was a bad law, with bad arguments. Even the woman who was 'Roe' in the case later changed her mind.

So what? She was a weak minded creature who pretty much did whatever she was told, which is why she needed an abortion to start with.

The terms 'constitutional' and 'unconstitutional' don't have any real meaning any more outside of sloganeering and propaganda, judges decide law on personal whims and political biases these days, not legal precedent and constitutionality, so no need to keep the pretenses.

Or they make rulings based on practicality. The delusion the pro-life side has is that abortions didn't happen before 1973. They happened all the time, all the courts did was change it from an illegal common practice to a legal common practice.

Ah, here we have Joe yet again proving he knows nothing and just parrots stuff, whatever is popular with sociopaths and deviants.

So we should legalize murder and rape as well; making them illegal hasn't stopped them, right?

moron.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, here we have Joe yet again proving he knows nothing and just parrots stuff, whatever is popular with sociopaths and deviants.

So we should legalize murder and rape as well; making them illegal hasn't stopped them, right?

moron.

Well, no, a deterrent is effective IF there is general agreement a thing should be illegal.

No one is "pro-rape". Of course, we do an awful job of enforcing these laws, as only 3% of rapists see the inside of a jail cell, but if we get someone in court on the charge, we're willing to convict.

The problem with abortion laws is that the weren't like the murder laws. Women were never arrested for having them, doctors were rarely prosecuted for performing them unless they maimed the women they were working on. Killing a fetus was never treated like murder.

At some point, you guys are going to have to try to convict someone of performing an abortion or having one.... and good luck with that, I don't see how a jury would ever convict someone of it.

So if you want a much better comparison... look at the prostitution laws. Yup, it's illegal to have sex with a stranger for money (but oddly, still legal to have sex with a stranger for free). and the country is full of strip joints, massage parlors, adult book stores, escort services and so on where you can get these illegal services. The cops largely know that they are there, but never shut them down.

 

[martybegan]

Your disdain for federalism is just a sign of your need to make everyone conform to your way of living/thinking. It is a clear sign of your narcissism.

Naw, it's a clear sign of pragmatism.

Why do you think State Governments are so corrupt - a lot more corrupt than the Federal Government?

Because no one is paying that much attention to them.

The last thing you want is to give these Amateurs more power. They generally mess up even the little things we let them control, letting them control something actually important like reproductive rights? No thank you.

Sorry but studies like this are too easy to manipulate to make them give the data a person wants.

Or you can just apply common sense. We have 96,000 medical deaths every year with ALL the safeguards we have in place to protect patients. Now, once you take away quality control, professionalism and any fear of a lawsuit, what do you think happens?

Yup, exactly what is happening in the Philippines, RIGHT NOW. Exactly what happened in America before Roe v. Wade.

You guys aren't going to save one fetus. You'll end up maiming a bunch of women... and I sometimes wonder if that's the point for some of you. Scratch a pro-lifer, find a misogynist.

Me, I don't want to live the live-action version of "A Handmaid's Tale". It was painful enough to read.

Sorry, but moving power further away from me is not my idea of making government better.

Nice job ignoring my critique on studies with a worthless statement.

The handmaidens tale exaggeration is one of the dumbest concepts out there. It just give progressives a made up boogeyman they can point to while avoiding any actual critical thinking on a topic.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You can't give much credibility to a constitutional amendment that was illegally ratified anyway.

Pick and choose your Amendments, eh?

No - The Right to Life is guaranteed. Up to us to enforce it.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Will Not Be Addressed Because It Cannot Be Established "

* Vacuity Of Trying To Grant More Wrights Than Are Afforded To A Citizen *

As I said, using Roe v Wade decision was not acceptable. There is no right to privacy, or abortion, spelled out in the 14th Amendment. It is ridiculous to even propose it is so. Had SCOTUS gone the other way in their decision, there would have been a simple remedy had the Court not chosen to make rights were none exist. All that needed to happen after the Court ruling against, is to have the US Congress due it's duty and pass legislation legalizing abortion (which they haven't done to my knowledge).

Now as to your fetus questions. I'm not saying there is any right in the Constitution covering them. So I won't waste time responding to them.

If, by chance, you are placing me in the category in which you blustered along with generalizations, don't - unless or until you understand where I stand on the subject of abortion.

First , i have spent more than a decade arguing that a wright to privacy is not the primary constitutional basis of roe v wade ; thus , not only do i understand your position on abortion but i mock it regularly for its incompleteness .

You did not even bother to explain the intent of blackmun ' s statement , "Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth." , just as i could not get one senator on the kavanaugh supreme court hearing panel to ask .

Point blank , blackmun indicated " Logically , of course " that the constitutional basis for abortion hinges upon the criteria of birth for citizenship , as per us 14th amendment , whence birth is required for equal protection .

Deduced from the former statement is that a fetus does not have constitutional protections and is the private property of the mother , from which the wright to privacy follows as secondary and not principle to the roe v wade decision .

The only judicial activism of the court was its conclusion that post viability the standard of parturition was relative and states could proscribe abortion thereafter , rather than simply ruling that procedures for abortion were protected until birth , at which point the legislature would have had to grapple with state interests in not only non citizens , but non citizens that had not met the minimal requirement for citizenship that is birth .