Roe Vs Wade appears to be ripe for overturning

[Monk-Eye]

" Saw Something Flit Continuum Hijack Nowhere "

* Back On Track *

Right after they indict Hillary Clinton.

What does that have to do with the discussion of actual constitutional law for this issue ?

The germane issue is that sufficient documentation of jurisprudence needs to be conveyed for edification of informed consent by legal administrators .

During the kavanaugh hearings , the left failed to call for an explanation of this statement ; Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "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." .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Universal Scale Of Exploitation "

* Pretentious Egoism *

Human life begins at conception.

Anthropocentric histrionics , raving for asceticism and a moratorium on ending hue mammon life , does not rebut that an individual is accountable to themselves for self ownership .

The lives of individuals capable of conception began before any conception and their lives will presumably continue after conception , should it be .

The element of self ownership includes a rite to progeny , such that a state does not dictate a decision for progeny as individuals are accountable for satisfying self ownership and its strong anthropic principle .

Given a success criteria of birth for equal protection , a state interest is limited to post viability .

One can assert that hue mammon life begins at conception , however such a trite retort indicates nothing about whether an individual , whom may suppose to be antinomian , expects that its opinion be enforced as law , though legal enforcement is contradictory with the tenets of antinomianism .

 

[ding]

" Universal Scale Of Exploitation "

* Pretentious Egoism *

Human life begins at conception.

Anthropocentric histrionics , raving for asceticism and a moratorium on ending hue mammon life , does not rebut that an individual is accountable to themselves for self ownership .

The lives of individuals capable of conception began before any conception and their lives will presumably continue after conception , should it be .

The element of self ownership includes a rite to progeny , such that a state does not dictate a decision for progeny as individuals are accountable for satisfying self ownership and its strong anthropic principle .

Given a success criteria of birth for equal protection , a state interest is limited to post viability .

One can assert that hue mammon life begins at conception , however such a trite retort indicates nothing about whether an individual , whom may suppose to be antinomian , expects that its opinion be enforced as law , though legal enforcement is contradictory with the tenets of antinomianism .

A new genetically distinct human being is created at the moment of conception. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Nothing Substantial Before The Law "

* Not My Problem To Move Along *

A new genetically distinct human being is created at the moment of conception. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Hue mammon self infatuation .. yawn .

 

[ding]

" Saw Something Flit Continuum Hijack Nowhere "

* Back On Track *

Right after they indict Hillary Clinton.

What does that have to do with the discussion of actual constitutional law for this issue ?

The germane issue is that sufficient documentation of jurisprudence needs to be conveyed for edification of informed consent by legal administrators .

During the kavanaugh hearings , the left failed to call for an explanation of this statement ; Blackmun, Roe V. Wade, "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." .

Because human rights begin when human life begins and legal rights are individual rights and individual rights begin when a specific individual begins.

All of which occur at conception.

Now do you understand?

 

[ding]

" Nothing Substantial Before The Law "

* Not My Problem To Move Along *

A new genetically distinct human being is created at the moment of conception. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.

Hue mammon self infatuation .. yawn .

Wrong. Reason, experience, logic, science and law.

 

[ding]

Let’s dance.

 

[ding]

" Universal Scale Of Exploitation "

* Pretentious Egoism *

Human life begins at conception.

Anthropocentric histrionics , raving for asceticism and a moratorium on ending hue mammon life , does not rebut that an individual is accountable to themselves for self ownership .

The lives of individuals capable of conception began before any conception and their lives will presumably continue after conception , should it be .

The element of self ownership includes a rite to progeny , such that a state does not dictate a decision for progeny as individuals are accountable for satisfying self ownership and its strong anthropic principle .

Given a success criteria of birth for equal protection , a state interest is limited to post viability .

One can assert that hue mammon life begins at conception , however such a trite retort indicates nothing about whether an individual , whom may suppose to be antinomian , expects that its opinion be enforced as law , though legal enforcement is contradictory with the tenets of antinomianism .

We are granted inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God’s creatures. These rights are granted upon the condition that our duty and obligation to the creator are met which is to behave with virtue.

The purpose of government is to secure these rights for all individuals that have met their obligation and duty to the creator.

there is no human being alive who is more defenseless and innocent than a child in the womb. It is the government’s duty and obligation to defend their rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

You do realize that privacy already had Constitutional protections, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

How does all modern privacy law stem from Roe v. Wade? The fourteenth Amendment already provides for that.

The fourteenth? Uh, well, kinda. More like the Bill of Rights provides for it, and the Fourteenth guarantees that it extends to every citizen. But generally, yeah.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

This is how you make freedom dissolve into tyranny. Soon the U.S. will allow religious cults to shove their "religion" straight up the genitals of Americans who are not members of these cults and have no interest in being so. No more freedom to choose your own religion. The politicians' choice will be forced upon you. Nazism seems to be rearing its ugly head again.

Whatever your inner child trauma with religion and genitals, could you PLEASE take it to your therapist and stop spewing it on people who really don't give a shit?

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

How does all modern privacy law stem from Roe v. Wade? The fourteenth Amendment already provides for that.

It was Roe, building on Griswald, that found a right to privacy under a Penumbra of rights under the constitution. Taking into consideration all the amendments of the constitution, the Court found that a right to privacy was a "fundamental right". A "fundamental right" is one where any law that impinges on such a right requires strict scrutiny of judicial review. There is no right to privacy enshrined in the constitution, it may be inferred, such as from the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments, for example, but there is nothing explicit in the constitution.

However hard you're working at sounding erudite, it's obvious that English was not your best subject.

It was Roe, building on Griswald, which INVENTED a generalized "right to privacy" by coining the bullshit phrase "emanations from the penumbra". If you actually knew what that meant, you wouldn't be confidently touting it to us as some sort of TA-DAAAAHHH!!! legal trump card (you should pardon the expression). It basically translates out to "shit we inferred from the hazy gray fringes of the laws."

The Constitution lists SPECIFIC occasions in which SPECIFIC privacies either cannot be infringed, or must be infringed in a prescribed manner, for prescribed reasons. There's a reason why it's not just a generalized "right to privacy": because most crimes happen IN PRIVATE.

The Framers actually were erudite and articulate. If they had wanted there to be a generalized right to privacy written into the Constitution, they'd have said so and you wouldn't have to be inferring it from the vaporous gases emanating from the penumbras of your own agenda.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

Actually, there is a whole line of cases that predated Roe v. Wade.
The Right to Privacy - CT Judicial Branch Law Library Services

Yes..I referenced one of those cases in another post. It was Roe, I believe, that made the right to privacy a fundamental right. That was the major difference.

And the fact that it was Roe that "made it a fundamental right", rather than the Constitution, tells you all you need to know.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Erroneous precedents in previous Supreme Court rulings are in no way sacred or set in stone. They are subject to the U.S. Constitution as it was written, originally understood, and intended. If former Supreme Court rulings are unconstitutional, then precedent must be overturned.

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred: Justices call for abandonment of 'mistaken' decisions

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

"Two U.S. Supreme Court justices this week challenged "erroneous precents" the court has used in some of its rulings, including the Roe v. Wade decision that created a right to abortion...

Even the author of the majority opinion in Roe, Harry Blackmun, admitted the ruling was on shaky ground. He warned that if the "personhood" of the unborn were to be established, their right to life would then be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment..."

Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas: Court precedent isn't sacred - WND

This is how you make freedom dissolve into tyranny. Soon the U.S. will allow religious cults to shove their "religion" straight up the genitals of Americans who are not members of these cults and have no interest in being so. No more freedom to choose your own religion. The politicians' choice will be forced upon you. Nazism seems to be rearing its ugly head again.

This doesn't have jack shit to do with religion.

You tardz need a new playbook.

Don't lie. This has every to do with religion and Americans' right to choose it freely. There are lots of Americans who have not chosen your religion and that of certain politicians, including most of the ones who have had an abortion. If you want to tell people in your chosen sect not to have an abortion, you may do so. But it ends there. You are trying to force your sect on everybody else. some of you even got laws passed that force people seeking abortions to go to one of your indoctrination centers.

This has nothing to do with religion, except that you have a pathological hatred of both religion and pregnancy, and you really want to tie them together so that you don't ever, EVER have to think about the actual issues.

Seek help.

 

[Coyote]

Roe vs. Wade was decided by "unelected activist judges" in the first place. It deserves to be given a second look.

How about Citizens United and the recent decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia? Be careful we may be opening Pandora's Box and these things have a way of coming back to bite you. Just ask Harry Reid about his 'nuclear option'.

Exactly...if precedent no longer matters and settled law is no longer settled law anything is up for overturning at any time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You do realize that nearly all modern privacy law stems from Roe v. Wade. Overturn Roe and you may very well find many of privacy protections taken away. But Conservatives were never big believers in privacy anyway. As long as they received there tax cuts, everything else is fair game.

How does all modern privacy law stem from Roe v. Wade? The fourteenth Amendment already provides for that.

It was Roe, building on Griswald, that found a right to privacy under a Penumbra of rights under the constitution. Taking into consideration all the amendments of the constitution, the Court found that a right to privacy was a "fundamental right". A "fundamental right" is one where any law that impinges on such a right requires strict scrutiny of judicial review. There is no right to privacy enshrined in the constitution, it may be inferred, such as from the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments, for example, but there is nothing explicit in the constitution.

So the so called right to privacy is inferred.

I agree.

However, it is insane to conclude that a woman's right to her privacy trumps her child's right to their life.

I am a firm supporter of women's rights. I just believe a woman's rights should begin when her life does and not just when we as a society can not stomach or justify the denial of her rights as a child anymore.

I really don't have any qualms about strict abortion laws. I think outlawing abortions all together just drives it underground. We would just go back to the days of coathangers for the poor and safe abortions for the rich who can send their kids or mistresses overseas or to another state. Having said that though I believe abortions should not be used as a form of birth control. As I said strict abortion laws are fine with me.

"The days of coathangers"? WHAT coathangers? I swear to God, what is it with people anywhere on the pro-abort spectrum that you're just incapable of making a calm, rational argument without overblown hyperbole like this?

Despite whatever melodramatic movie trope you have playing in your head on this subject, the fact is that legalized abortion didn't start with Roe v. Wade, nor even with the states which legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. States which nominally had strict abortion laws - Kansas, for example - still saw about as many abortions performed by licensed physicians (thanks to very loose interpretations of "health endangerment") as California. So spare me the invented boogeymen of women jamming hangers up their coochies or butchers with a dirty knife and a card table in some alleyway.

Frankly, given the "quality" of some of the abortionists the pro-aborts protect now - can we say, "Kermit Gosnell, anyone?" - doesn't look to me like you've really achieved the safety you wretchedly lie about being your priority.

 

[Cecilie1200]

More of the "grab her by the pussy" crap again?

No.

This is not about Biden or the criminal investigation against him.

You post lie after lie. Abortion is between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. Any RATIONAL PERSON knows that.

"My viewpoint is reality and everyone knows it is . . . because that's what my unicorn told me!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Roe vs. Wade was decided by "unelected activist judges" in the first place. It deserves to be given a second look.

How about Citizens United and the recent decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia? Be careful we may be opening Pandora's Box and these things have a way of coming back to bite you. Just ask Harry Reid about his 'nuclear option'.

Exactly...if precedent no longer matters and settled law is no longer settled law anything is up for overturning at any time.

Considering that that was always the case, and "settled law" only existed in leftist arguments of "We won a battle, and now you HAVE TO ACCEPT IT FOREVER!!!!" somehow that news fails to disquiet me.

 

[alang1216]

Roe vs. Wade was decided by "unelected activist judges" in the first place. It deserves to be given a second look.

How about Citizens United and the recent decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia? Be careful we may be opening Pandora's Box and these things have a way of coming back to bite you. Just ask Harry Reid about his 'nuclear option'.

Exactly...if precedent no longer matters and settled law is no longer settled law anything is up for overturning at any time.

Considering that that was always the case, and "settled law" only existed in leftist arguments of "We won a battle, and now you HAVE TO ACCEPT IT FOREVER!!!!" somehow that news fails to disquiet me.

Careful, pendulums have a way of swinging back at you.