Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice

[Rigby5]

This post is a lie. There is not, nor ever has been broad support for abortion. Most people find sucking out a living baby with a vacuum repulsive. Only the leftwing dimbulbs think it's this sanitary procedure that is about a woman only.

Wrong.
Abortion is necessary and 65% of the people want it to remain legal and at the discretion of the woman, according to all the polls.

It is totally about the woman's rights because a fetus without sentience, has no rights.

 

[Rigby5]

Why are progressives so fearful of allowing the people to decide on abortion versus unelected judges?

Because individual rights are never supposed to be up for "majority rule".
If the white majority wants to enslave a Black minority, that does not make it legal, right, or something that is not work killing in order to stop.
The rights of a single person over ride the desires of all others.

 

[Rigby5]

Why are progressives so fearful of allowing the people to decide on abortion versus unelected judges?

States are NOT the "will of the people", nor would I ever allow a majority to abuse anyone.

 

[Rigby5]

Why do citizens of California think they have standing to overrule the will of the citizens in Alabama?

Rights are superior to the "will" of any number of people.
If Alabama wants to violate rights, then the whole state needs to be defeated so that no one's rights get abused.

 

[Rigby5]

Dollars over lives. And you need to do a little biological research before you claim no one is being killed.

There are thousands of ovum, and if you kill early ovum, so that you can instead allow later ovum to be born, then you have done good.

 

[BS Filter]

The intent and purpose of the 14th amendment was to prevent states from abusing individual rights.
The rights of Black ex-slaves in particular.
But individual rights are infinite.

Who says individual rights are infinite?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Because individual rights are never supposed to be up for "majority rule".
If the white majority wants to enslave a Black minority, that does not make it legal, right, or something that is not work killing in order to stop.
The rights of a single person over ride the desires of all others.

Who is arguing this point? The 14th Amendment was designed to make sure we fixed the gaps in certain people having less rights than others.

 

[BS Filter]

Rights are superior to the "will" of any number of people.
If Alabama wants to violate rights, then the whole state needs to be defeated so that no one's rights get abused.

You live in your own little world, huh.

 

[2aguy]

“America is a different place, with most of its population born after Roe was decided. And a decision to overturn Roe — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate Roe’s damage than to reverse it.

It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.

What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.”

Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice (Published 2022)

An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.

www.nytimes.com

Overturning Roe is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.

So....genius......you obviously then believe that Plessy v Ferguson should never have been over turned?

Plessy v Ferguson, which stated that "separate but equal," was Constitutional, was decided in 1892........and stood as law until 1952.....62 years......so people who were born in 1892 so........according to you because of this.....

with most of its population born after Roe was decided.

Then Plessy v Ferguson should have remained the law of the land......correct?

You idiot.

 

[2aguy]

The Rightwing penchant overturning long established precedent and established late, for putting in political judges and creating tbe most politically activist court since FDR almost a century ago….is indeed reckless.

The Supreme Court is losing credibility as being an impartial judiciary is being eroded in the eyes of many American. This isn’t good for our country. Neither is the possible precedent of giving individual rights and then taking them away.

This........

So....genius......you obviously then believe that Plessy v Ferguson should never have been over turned?

Plessy v Ferguson, which stated that "separate but equal," was Constitutional, was decided in 1892........and stood as law until 1952.....62 years......so people who were born in 1892 so........according to you because of this.....

with most of its population born after Roe was decided.

Then Plessy v Ferguson should have remained the law of the land......correct?

You idiot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So....genius......you obviously then believe that Plessy v Ferguson should never have been over turned?

Plessy v Ferguson, which stated that "separate but equal," was Constitutional, was decided in 1892........and stood as law until 1952.....62 years......so people who were born in 1892 so........according to you because of this.....

with most of its population born after Roe was decided.

Then Plessy v Ferguson should have remained the law of the land......correct?

You idiot.

Overturning Roe Is a radical, not conservative, choice

Conservative dogma used to advocate for slow, incremental change through democratic consensus, not via radical, extreme judicial fiat contrary to the will of the people.

Over the last 50 years conservatism has become extreme, radical, illiberal, and anti-democratic – seeking to compel conformity; the radical choice to overturn Roe is the culmination of that 50 year process of rightwing authoritarianism.

 

[2aguy]

Overturning Roe Is a radical, not conservative, choice

Conservative dogma used to advocate for slow, incremental change through democratic consensus, not via radical, extreme judicial fiat contrary to the will of the people.

Over the last 50 years conservatism has become extreme, radical, illiberal, and anti-democratic – seeking to compel conformity; the radical choice to overturn Roe is the culmination of that 50 year process of rightwing authoritarianism.

So...again....you support Plessy v Ferguson, that "Separate is equal," since it had been the Supreme Court ruling for 62 years.............right?

Roe v Wade was only in place for 49 years......

So...answer the question...

Do you support the decision in Plessy v Ferguson because it was settled Constitutional law for 62 years?

Yes or no?

 

[BS Filter]

Overturning Roe Is a radical, not conservative, choice

Conservative dogma used to advocate for slow, incremental change through democratic consensus, not via radical, extreme judicial fiat contrary to the will of the people.

Over the last 50 years conservatism has become extreme, radical, illiberal, and anti-democratic – seeking to compel conformity; the radical choice to overturn Roe is the culmination of that 50 year process of rightwing authoritarianism.

So you believe that the Supreme Court should decide cases by the will of the people. You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you.

 

[2aguy]

So you believe that the Supreme Court should decide cases by the will of the people. You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you.

He is also a racist who supports the Plessy v Ferguson, Separate but equal Constitutional ruling that stood for 62 years.....while Roe only stood for 49.....

 

[BS Filter]

He is also a racist who supports the Plessy v Ferguson, Separate but equal Constitutional ruling that stood for 62 years.....while Roe only stood for 49.....

The ignorance around here is deplorable.

 

[BackAgain]

“America is a different place, with most of its population born after Roe was decided. And a decision to overturn Roe — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate Roe’s damage than to reverse it.

It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.

What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.”

Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice (Published 2022)

An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.

www.nytimes.com

Overturning Roe is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.

Overruling Roe was the only valid and proper Constitutional choice. It isn’t radical at all. It’s an accurate and just application of the law. Roe itself was simply lawless.

 

[dudmuck]

Overruling Roe was the only valid and proper Constitutional choice. It isn’t radical at all. It’s an accurate and just application of the law. Roe itself was simply lawless.

did you forget our constitution has a right to privacy?

the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to an abortion.

 

[buckeye45_73]

did you forget our constitution has a right to privacy?

the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to an abortion.

How so? Oh and it proteccts me from having to share my vax status......with anyone., but you didn't give a shit about that.

 

[BS Filter]

did you forget our constitution has a right to privacy?

the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to an abortion.

Who says?

 

[BackAgain]

did you forget our constitution has a right to privacy?

the "right to privacy" protects a woman's right to an abortion.

No. We actually don’t have any “right to privacy” set forth in the Constitution, to be perfectly precise about it. You have been misled. If we did, you could cite the article and quote te section.

I recognize that there is an arguable implicit right to some privacy. Thus, we have protections enumerated in the Constitution like the 4th Amendment which suggest a right to privacy. But that right certainly yields (which explains how it can be overcome by a warrant) — and there’s zero implication in the Constitution that any implicit right we have to privacy (such as in our own homes) would give us the right to commit a homicide in the privacy of our houses.

So it is quite stupid, illogical and baseless to claim, as Roe tried to, that the “right to privacy” somehow could conceivably imply a “right to commit abortions.”

Short answer to your stupid question: no. I didn’t “forget” anything. You are merely hyperventilating about some bullshit you heard and believed but haven’t grasped and which you cannot comprehend.