If RvW Is Overturned

[BS Filter]

you asserted overturning roe would protect the children. Don't lie now. Go with it.

Show the post.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I recall hearing about 'activist' judges from the Right for years. That stopped when the activism was in favor of the Right. RvW was settled law for 40 years so that concept has no meaning.

I suspect if you review every SCOTUS confirmation, the candidate emphasized precedent, stare decisis, as key. Grounds for impeachment?

Roe v. Wade was decided by activist judges who indicated privacy was a right, but is not found in the Constitution.

 

[forkup]

I am confused. Are you saying contraception is not available in some states? Or that some states are not allowing you to use it?

I know that Alito mentioned the right to contraception in his ruling. Specifically saying that this ruling doesn't apply to contraception. I find that line in it interesting. Specifically, because he knows that his entire logic of argumentation would actually apply to it if the Supreme court would take up a challenge to the right.

If your legal argument is so strong you literally have to point out that you aren't prepared to carry the logic through to its conclusion. I can only find your argument flawed.

 

[forkup]

Roe v. Wade was decided by activist judges who indicated privacy was a right, but is not found in the Constitution.

Roe vs Wade was decided by a 7-2 vote by members of BOTH parties.

 

[BS Filter]

Abortion should be a state issue just like marriage laws should be a state issue. The Supreme Court overstepped their authority on both issues.

 

[bendog]

Show the post.

In post 121, You deny that ending abortion will not protect children because contraception is available, and now you seek to waffle out of that. Ending abortion will do nothing but make already scarce resources serve more children. Enjoy.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I am confused. Are you saying contraception is not available in some states? Or that some states are not allowing you to use it?

Griswold v. Connecticut

Forty-eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the promotion or use of birth control.

www.plannedparenthoodaction.org

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticut case established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v. Wade and safe and legal abortion.

It signified the court’s belief that people should be free from the unnecessary interference of the state and considered “the very idea [of searching marital bedrooms for contraception] is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”

 

[bendog]

Griswold v. Connecticut

Forty-eight years ago, the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the promotion or use of birth control.

www.plannedparenthoodaction.org

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut marked the beginning of an era of change for sexual and reproductive rights in the United States. Ruling that the states had no right to ban contraception for married couples, the landmark decision in the Griswold v. Connecticut case established — for the first time — a constitutional right to privacy regarding reproductive decisions that paved the way for the legalization of birth control for unmarried couples, and ultimately, Roe v. Wade and safe and legal abortion.

It signified the court’s belief that people should be free from the unnecessary interference of the state and considered “the very idea [of searching marital bedrooms for contraception] is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”

Applying Alito's "logic," if there was no law against abortion prior to 1787 or the 14th amend, does the right to privacy found by the Griswold Court still fly? LOL

 

[BS Filter]

In post 121, You deny that ending abortion will not protect children because contraception is available, and now you seek to waffle out of that. Ending abortion will do nothing but make already scarce resources serve more children. Enjoy.

I said abortion isn't safe for women and children. I never used the word "protect". You obviously don't comprehend the post.

 

[bendog]

I said abortion isn't safe for women and children. I never used the word "protect". You obviously don't comprehend the post.

LOL. yes, I did read you dodged the issue, and then you posted you didn't. And again, you lied.

 

[forkup]

I said abortion isn't safe for women and children. I never used the word "protect". You obviously don't comprehend the post.

Ah, do you think mortality should be a determinating factor? The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed

You really think you want to go by that argument?

 

[BS Filter]

LOL. yes, I did read you dodged the issue, and then you posted you didn't. And again, you lied.

Now you’re trolling. Pitiful.

 

[BS Filter]

Ah, do you think mortality should be a determinating factor? The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States - PubMed

You really think you want to go by that argument?

Sure, I'll stand on that argument. Is at least one human life ended by having an abortion?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A right to do with their bodies as they did in 1787.

Women had no rights in 1787.

 

[task0778]

What's so bad about letting an INDIVIDUAL person decide whether or not they want to carry a pregnancy to term?

What's so bad about letting an individual commit murder?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What's so bad about letting an individual commit murder?

He asked a straight question.

You sissy dodged it and asked a loaded question that requires one to have already adopted your beliefs.

Intellectual weakness on parade.

 

[bendog]

Now you’re trolling. Pitiful.

• Today at 12:16 PM
• Add bookmark
• #144

bendog said:
dodge.

Truth.

 

[ChemEngineer]

BLM, Antifa, many college campuses. Those riots seem to be coming from the left not the right.

"SEEM"?

What the...........

 

[AZrailwhale]

And yet all the rioting happened on Fatboy's watch!!!!
MAGA

Because the liberals were trying and succeeding to overthrow the elected president.

 

[forkup]

What's so bad about letting an individual commit murder?

Who's talking about murder? I'm talking about abortion. Done safely, and within a reasonable time from conception.

I love how you changed your premise here by the way.

By the way, pregnancy carries an inherent risk to the mother. You are for taking away the right of the mother to not take the risk. Would you consider yourself a murderer when a mother dies delivering because you are for a law prohibiting abortion?

I'm guessing no.

I for one am no fan of abortion. I don't like the idea, and I can see the argument for and against it. But here"s the thing. If you don't like abortion you can opt not to have one. When you agree with the right, prohibiting actually limits your freedom. Only one position here takes away liberty. You know the thing you claim to hold so dear, that even mentioning things like gun control, something that could prevent thousands of preventable deaths a year is a non-starter.