It was Roe v. Wade that created this mess, and it won't be fixed until...

[Blackrook]

...Roe v, Wade is overturned.

The liberals took an unethical shortcut when they used the Supreme Court to ram legal abortion down our throats, and this mess with Kavenaugh is the bloody, rotten result.

The only way to end it is to overturn Roe v. Wade and give the abortion issues back to the state legislatures where it belongs.

Some states will outlaw abortion, but it will remain legal in others.

Pro-lifers will continue their work to convince people, using democratic, peaceful means, that every human life is precious and deserves protection of the laws.

 

[saveliberty]

If the mother's life is in jeopardy, I don't think the state should be allowed to make her carry the baby. No, better to have a consistent law of the land. You'd just end up having women crossing state lines for abortions. Reduce the time frame to get one first.

 

[Blackrook]

If the mother's life is in jeopardy, I don't think the state should be allowed to make her carry the baby. No, better to have a consistent law of the land. You'd just end up having women crossing state lines for abortions. Reduce the time frame to get one first.

Roe v. Wade is completely unsupported by the text of the Constitution, because there is no such things as a "Right to Privacy." The Supreme Court invented this right out of thin air.

Yes or no?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...Roe v, Wade is overturned.

The liberals took an unethical shortcut when they used the Supreme Court to ram legal abortion down our throats, and this mess with Kavenaugh is the bloody, rotten result.

The only way to end it is to overturn Roe v. Wade and give the abortion issues back to the state legislatures where it belongs.

Some states will outlaw abortion, but it will remain legal in others.

Pro-lifers will continue their work to convince people, using democratic, peaceful means, that every human life is precious and deserves protection of the laws.

Wrong.

This ‘mess’ was created by authoritarian conservatives and religious extremists hostile to the right to privacy seeking to codify their wrongheaded religious dogma into secular law by compelling women to give birth against their will.

Overturning Roe will serve only to give government more power and authority at the expense of individual liberty – more government and bigger government interfering in citizens’ private lives; more government and bigger government at the behest of conservatives.

 

[saveliberty]

If the mother's life is in jeopardy, I don't think the state should be allowed to make her carry the baby. No, better to have a consistent law of the land. You'd just end up having women crossing state lines for abortions. Reduce the time frame to get one first.

Roe v. Wade is completely unsupported by the text of the Constitution, because there is no such things as a "Right to Privacy." The Supreme Court invented this right out of thin air.

Yes or no?

No, you have the right to Life and Liberty, if a pregnancy would kill you, then there's a problem. In the same light, we need to protect a class currently ignored, the unborn. Liberals would like to ignore them, much like women and minorities were for a long time.

 

[saveliberty]

Wrong.

This ‘mess’ was created by authoritarian conservatives and religious extremists hostile to the right to privacy seeking to codify their wrongheaded religious dogma into secular law by compelling women to give birth against their will.

Overturning Roe will serve only to give government more power and authority at the expense of individual liberty – more government and bigger government interfering in citizens’ private lives; more government and bigger government at the behest of conservatives.

Hard to say it is against their will when they had unprotected sex. You are depriving a class of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[S.J.]

I think the left has it's sites on bigger things, like nullifying the 2nd amendment. They can't do that unless they have at least 5 radical leftist activists on the SC to rubber stamp everything they do. That's why they're so upset over Trump winning. If he gets to replace Ginsberg they'll have to wait at least another generation.

 

[Blackrook]

...Roe v, Wade is overturned.

The liberals took an unethical shortcut when they used the Supreme Court to ram legal abortion down our throats, and this mess with Kavenaugh is the bloody, rotten result.

The only way to end it is to overturn Roe v. Wade and give the abortion issues back to the state legislatures where it belongs.

Some states will outlaw abortion, but it will remain legal in others.

Pro-lifers will continue their work to convince people, using democratic, peaceful means, that every human life is precious and deserves protection of the laws.

Wrong.

This ‘mess’ was created by authoritarian conservatives and religious extremists hostile to the right to privacy seeking to codify their wrongheaded religious dogma into secular law by compelling women to give birth against their will.

Overturning Roe will serve only to give government more power and authority at the expense of individual liberty – more government and bigger government interfering in citizens’ private lives; more government and bigger government at the behest of conservatives.

The so-called "right to privacy" is an invention of the Supreme Court, not found in the actual text of the Constitution.

Yes or no?

You claim to be a Constitutional scholar.

What is the answer to this yes or no question?

 

[saveliberty]

I am done with the nothing burger of abortion on demand.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the mother's life is in jeopardy, I don't think the state should be allowed to make her carry the baby. No, better to have a consistent law of the land. You'd just end up having women crossing state lines for abortions. Reduce the time frame to get one first.

Roe v. Wade is completely unsupported by the text of the Constitution, because there is no such things as a "Right to Privacy." The Supreme Court invented this right out of thin air.

Yes or no?

At least you’re consistent at being wrong and ignorant.

The Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments clearly recognize a right to privacy, limiting government authority to involve itself in personal, private matters.

That the word ‘privacy’ is not in the Constitution is irrelevant – just as the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ not being in the Second Amendment is likewise irrelevant.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

 

[saveliberty]

I think the left has it's sites on bigger things, like nullifying the 2nd amendment. They can't do that unless they have at least 5 radical leftist activists on the SC to rubber stamp everything they do. That's why they're so upset over Trump winning. If he gets to replace Ginsberg they'll have to wait at least another generation.

But, but...It's codified law and precedent!!!


...until a liberal tells you it isn't....

 

[saveliberty]

At least you’re consistent at being wrong and ignorant.

The Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments clearly recognize a right to privacy, limiting government authority to involve itself in personal, private matters.

That the word ‘privacy’ is not in the Constitution is irrelevant – just as the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ not being in the Second Amendment is likewise irrelevant.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

Not much is private about pregnancy, pretty much everyone sees or hears about it. The state has a responsibility to protect all classes, you just want to ignore the unborn.

 

[Blackrook]

If the mother's life is in jeopardy, I don't think the state should be allowed to make her carry the baby. No, better to have a consistent law of the land. You'd just end up having women crossing state lines for abortions. Reduce the time frame to get one first.

Roe v. Wade is completely unsupported by the text of the Constitution, because there is no such things as a "Right to Privacy." The Supreme Court invented this right out of thin air.

Yes or no?

At least you’re consistent at being wrong and ignorant.

The Third, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments clearly recognize a right to privacy, limiting government authority to involve itself in personal, private matters.

That the word ‘privacy’ is not in the Constitution is irrelevant – just as the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ not being in the Second Amendment is likewise irrelevant.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The "right to privacy" is in the "penumbra" of other rights, which means, it's absolute bullshit.

If liberals wanted to have a "Right to Privacy" they should have moved to amend the United States Constitution.

But they did not do that, because they didn't feel they could win the issue democratically.

So they took shortcuts, with a series of cases leading to Roe v. Wade.

 

[Slade3200]

...Roe v, Wade is overturned.

The liberals took an unethical shortcut when they used the Supreme Court to ram legal abortion down our throats, and this mess with Kavenaugh is the bloody, rotten result.

The only way to end it is to overturn Roe v. Wade and give the abortion issues back to the state legislatures where it belongs.

Some states will outlaw abortion, but it will remain legal in others.

Pro-lifers will continue their work to convince people, using democratic, peaceful means, that every human life is precious and deserves protection of the laws.

Keep dreaming buddy. Ain’t gonna happen

 

[saveliberty]

Clayton's case rests on prior laws and precedent. If that were really his argument, then we had laws against abortion, before the Supreme Court overturned them. Well Clayton?

Then the argument goes to, well it was religion being imposed on people. No, we have long established laws on murder. Try again.

 

[pismoe]

I think the left has it's sites on bigger things, like nullifying the 2nd amendment. They can't do that unless they have at least 5 radical leftist activists on the SC to rubber stamp everything they do. That's why they're so upset over Trump winning. If he gets to replace Ginsberg they'll have to wait at least another generation.

------------------------------------------------ yep , i think its about gun control . Get rid of 'roe v wade' and it just goes back to the states and so Abortion will remain legal . But i do think that they are after Guns and KAV is good on Guns from what i hear SJ .

 

[Blackrook]

...Roe v, Wade is overturned.

The liberals took an unethical shortcut when they used the Supreme Court to ram legal abortion down our throats, and this mess with Kavenaugh is the bloody, rotten result.

The only way to end it is to overturn Roe v. Wade and give the abortion issues back to the state legislatures where it belongs.

Some states will outlaw abortion, but it will remain legal in others.

Pro-lifers will continue their work to convince people, using democratic, peaceful means, that every human life is precious and deserves protection of the laws.

Keep dreaming buddy. Ain’t gonna happen

It will, because our side will never stop fighting, even if it takes 1000 years.

 

[saveliberty]

Basically we need to establish some type of equality between the life of the mother and that of the unborn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...Roe v, Wade is overturned.

The liberals took an unethical shortcut when they used the Supreme Court to ram legal abortion down our throats, and this mess with Kavenaugh is the bloody, rotten result.

The only way to end it is to overturn Roe v. Wade and give the abortion issues back to the state legislatures where it belongs.

Some states will outlaw abortion, but it will remain legal in others.

Pro-lifers will continue their work to convince people, using democratic, peaceful means, that every human life is precious and deserves protection of the laws.

“Some states will outlaw abortion…”

Exactly, consistent with the authoritarian right’s desire to compel conformity through force of law at the expense of individual liberty.

That the Supreme Court will soon allow the states to ‘ban’ abortion in violation of the right to privacy doesn’t mean that right doesn’t exist.

So much for ‘small government’ conservatives.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Basically we need to establish some type of equality between the life of the mother and that of the unborn.

Flip a coin at the abortion clinic.