Putting abortion itself aside, these are the problems with overturning Roe v Wade...

[Meister]

I understand 'because' I lean toward socially responsibility being demonstrated by the higheest court in the land, regardless of what country's court we address.

I'm fully aware of the argument that freedom is being granted to the people of each individual state.

And so I understand how that argument is being used to strip away a woman's right to abortion.

To me that's an established fact, and then becomes secondary to revealing the explanation on why America is allowing it to happen.

Religious superstitious beliefs are at the top of the list.

RvW allows for 9th month abortions.
This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with common sense
which you seem to lack.

 

[Donald H]

RvW allows for 9th month abortions.
This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with common sense
which you seem to lack.

9th. month abortion is justified in some cases.

No abortion should be necessary.

Even you are demonstrating a lack of confidence in your position when you turn to the 9th. month extreme.

Why not tell us what your personal position is on abortion?

There's likely no more than 10% who are totally and completely against abortion with no qualifications.

 

[Meister]

9th. month abortion is justified in some cases.

No abortion should be necessary.

Even you are demonstrating a lack of confidence in your position when you turn to the 9th. month extreme.

Why not tell us what your personal position is on abortion?

There's likely no more than 10% who are totally and completely against abortion with no qualifications.

BS, I'm stating a fact that the left doesn't speak of.
I'm for life, dude, but I am more for letting the People
decide at the state level. That gives the People more freedom,
not less, like the horseshit that comes from your mouth.
And you don't even live here, and no skin in the game.....priceless.

 

[Donald H]

BS, I'm stating a fact that the left doesn't speak of.
I'm for life, dude, but I am more for letting the People
decide at the state level. That gives the People more freedom,
not less, like the horseshit that comes from your mouth.
And you don't even live here, and no skin in the game.....priceless.

It's a question of the new laws enacted by the states results in women being granted more freedom or less freedom?

We're together on our talking point at least.

You didn't answer on your position on abortions. Are you for a complete ban on abortion or a ban with some qualifications?

I can't continue to debate the issue if I don't know your position. And so I'll let it go at that.

Also, i'll choose to respect your opinion that anyone who isn't an American isn't qualified to debate this question.

 

[Lesh]

I am more for letting the People
decide at the state level. That gives the People more freedom,

But less freedom for women...which of course doesn't affect you since you're not a woman

 

[sartre play]

Throwing away the equality that was long and hard to win for women here in USA.
Working our way back to policys on the treatment and place in socity of women will make a lot of old white men happy.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Instead, the courts are supposed to ensure that our existing rights have not been restricted or denied, according to their interpretation of our Constitution.

That's what they did in Roe v Wade.

 

[Mac-7]

Throwing away the equality that was long and hard to win for women here in USA.
Working our way back to policys on the treatment and place in socity of women will make a lot of old white men happy.

But not old black guys?

Or old japanese guys where women in japan could not vote till 1945?

 

[task0778]

That's what they did in Roe v Wade.

No, what they did in Roe v Wade is create a right to an abortion that has no basis whatsoever in the US Constitution. It was a textbook example of legislating from the bench, a clear usurpation of the sole function that belongs to the Congress. What they are apparently doing now is correcting a wrong that shouldn't have happened. And the sad thing is, had they not ruled as they did in RvW, we might've already passed legislation in Congress a long time ago that codified abortion rights instead of leaving it up to 9 unelected individuals.

 

[Donald H]

But less freedom for women...which of course doesn't affect you since you're not a woman

it's not at all clear that Meister opposes abortion.

She/he? i thought she.

Will not state her/his position on abortion. She/he suggests that women will have more freedom if it's decided at the state level.

At first glance that appears to me to be in favour of abortion with some qualifications.

 

[Donald H]

That's what they did in Roe v Wade.

The anti-abortion side are trapped in a situation in which they are refusing to state their position on abortion, as to their personal qualifications. Without that from them they're blowing smoke.

 

[buttercup]

 

[easyt65]

The court is establishing itself as a political institution and begging for political interference into the court's activities and composition. Essentially, the court is waging war on it's long standing traditional self.

The court continues to be what it understands itself to be, the highest judges in the highest court in the nation. It is the final say in Constitutionality.

It is not the court that has attemptedto make itself a political institution but instead political parties and individuals.

The court does not nominate judges for consideration as USSC Justices.

The court does not decide which candidates get confirmation hearings or eventually join their ranks.

Justices have established rules, regulations, and safeguards meant to prevent deliberations and decisions from being tainted, influenced from outside interference, pressure, and / or intimidation.

For decades these safeguards have been respected and protected...Until this politically motivated betrayal of those safeguards, this intentional leak meant to bring outside biased political pressure and intimidation on USSC Justices and influence both their processes and their final decision.

It has been corrupt individuals and parties who have sought to politically manipulate the court to ensure their agendas would be supported and defended.

Democrats demanded 5 specific times (according to an articl already posted by someone) the USSC's decisions MUST be strictly obeyed. Of course those were 5 times when doing so benefitted them.

When Democrats do not get their way we have all seen how their commitment to the court's decision change ... drastically ... violently.

Despite the ignorance and extreme emotions leading rediculous, false accusations and fear-mongering by extremists, the USSC makes rulings based on Constututionality, not political bias (which extremists define as any opinion other than their own).

The Justices actually deliberate and debate, during which time they must make Constitutional arguments regarding the Constitutionality of the case.

They don't just count how many Conservatives and how many liberals there are and the highest number decides how the court will rule. What idiot believes any (or all) of them would allow such a thing to happen?

How many idiots believe any of the Justices would bow to threats from Federal Politicians or liberal extremists?
- Must be a lot because many try to intimidate and threatened judges. D-Chuck Schumer has done it twice now, PUBLICLY.

USSC Justices did not leak the brief itself for political benefit or reason.

The court did not doxx itself, did not call for violence against itself, and did not pay extremists to come to their houses to threaten them.

The Justices did not call for violence, did not attack police officers and commit terrorist violence in the streets recently.

The idea that the court is trying to make itself a political entity is ridiculous, just another irrational response from leftist extremists freaking out because they did not get their way again.

 

[Rigby5]

RvW allows for 9th month abortions.
This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with common sense
which you seem to lack.

Common sense demands that if you find something major wrong with a fetus before birth, even in the 9th month, you abort.
Like spinal bifida.
You do NOT allow such a serious, painful, and unrecoverable defect to be born for no reason.
And again, this has to be decided ONLY by a woman and her doctor.
No one else has ANY standing at all, in any way.

 

[Rigby5]

BS, I'm stating a fact that the left doesn't speak of.
I'm for life, dude, but I am more for letting the People
decide at the state level. That gives the People more freedom,
not less, like the horseshit that comes from your mouth.
And you don't even live here, and no skin in the game.....priceless.

WRONG!
The state level gives absolutely NO freedom at all, because abortion has to be INDIVIDUAL choice.
No government gets any say at all, ever.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

There are few examples in the court's history of the court undoing its own precedent. But when it does happen, it has always been as an expansive view of personal liberties. By overturning Roe, the court is reversing itself to limit the scope of personal freedoms for the first time, ever.

Overturning Roe is not conservative. Of course, almost nobody knows what it means to be conservative anymore. The real essence of conservatism is strength through stability, wisdom over passion, contemplation over activism. What the court is now doing is embarking on a new era where stare decisis is no more, and the court oscillates back and forth on hot button issues as ideological balances shift.

The court is establishing itself as a political institution and begging for political interference into the court's activities and composition. Essentially, the court is waging war on it's long standing traditional self. The lifetime appointments that are intended to protect the court from political influence are now being weaponized by members of the court in order to solidify its own political objectives, which is a form of tyranny.

Where nominees to the court in recent decades have been (possibly inappropriately) asked litmus-test like questions during confirmation hearings (questions which they artfully avoided answering with generic deference to stare decisis), as justices these same individuals have shown that such questions were indeed necessary even if inappropriate, as will be the need to demand firm and unambiguous responses. The justices have proven that their own perfunctory responses could not be trusted, and therefore those of future nominees should not be trusted.

This paves the way for EVERY SINGLE LIBERTY PRESERVING PRECEDENT EVER to be overturned. Free speech, religious freedom, gun rights....all of it is now 100% at the mercy of the current court's willingness to uphold it for the individual at bar. The court will become superior to the bill of rights.

You obviously haven't read the draft. It's specifically states that it only applies to abortion due to the unique implications of the act, and shall not be construed as applying to any other right, including privacy.

Secondly, there is no right to abortion enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Rather, it falls under the 10th Amendment as preserved for the states.

 

[Rigby5]

No, what they did in Roe v Wade is create a right to an abortion that has no basis whatsoever in the US Constitution. It was a textbook example of legislating from the bench, a clear usurpation of the sole function that belongs to the Congress. What they are apparently doing now is correcting a wrong that shouldn't have happened. And the sad thing is, had they not ruled as they did in RvW, we might've already passed legislation in Congress a long time ago that codified abortion rights instead of leaving it up to 9 unelected individuals.

Sorry, but that is STUPID.
The Constitution does not at all create any rights and never intended to.
Rights have to already exist and be inherent to individuals before we could have even considered conducting an armed rebellion and authorizing a Constitution.
The purpose of the Constitution was to only to delineate between federal and all other jurisdiction.
So all it did and had to do was to only list areas of federal authority.
It has NOTHING at all about individual rights.
Nor do legislators have to pen legislation before we have rights.
It always has to be the other way around, that a right has to be recognized as existing first, before the legislature can be authorized to pen any specific legislation intended to protect that right.

Your proposal that Congress should codify abortion rights is totally and completely wrong.
Congress is federal and clearly the federal legislature is NOT at all authorized to pen anything at all dealing with personal rights, like privacy, health care, religion, etc. So abortion is completely and totally denied from any congressional jurisdiction.

As individual personal rights, things like privacy, heath care, religion, etc. are also denied any state infringement either, by the 14th amendment. So abortion always must legally remain simply a matter of individual choice, between woman and doctor.

 

[Rigby5]

You obviously haven't read the draft. It's specifically states that it only applies to abortion due to the unique implications of the act, and shall not be construed as applying to any other right, including privacy.

Secondly, there is no right to abortion enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Rather, it falls under the 10th Amendment as preserved for the states.

Totally wrong. The personal right of privacy ensures the right of abortion, and prevents any federal OR state jurisdiction.
If a person does not want anyone to know they had sex, then that privacy can require an abortion, obviously.

And you clearly have NOT ever read the 10th amendment, which clearly states is NOT just the states that jurisdiction defaults to when not granted to the feds.
Here is the 10th:
{...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}
Individual rights are supreme over the states in many areas, such as privacy, religion, right to life, medicine, speech, etc.

States only get jurisdiction over the protection of some individual rights, but that in no way implies states can then abrogate those rights at will. Not on a republic anyway.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Totally wrong. The personal right of privacy ensures the right of abortion, and prevents any federal OR state jurisdiction.
If a person does not want anyone to know they had sex, then that privacy can require an abortion, obviously.

And you clearly have NOT ever read the 10th amendment, which clearly states is NOT just the states that jurisdiction defaults to when not granted to the feds.
Here is the 10th:
{...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
...}
Individual rights are supreme over the states in many areas, such as privacy, religion, right to life, medicine, speech, etc.

States only get jurisdiction over the protection of some individual rights, but that in no way implies states can then abrogate those rights at will. Not on a republic anyway.

The fact that you disagree with me just confirms I'm correct. That's a very accurate test, known around here as the "Rigby barometer"

 

[Rigby5]

The fact that you disagree with me just confirms I'm correct. That's a very accurate test, known around here as the "Rigby barometer"

That is your opinion vs the actual 10th amendment, which clearly says states do not automatically have authority over anything the feds do not.

Until you have some sort of actual argument, logic, links, quotes, etc., you have nothing.