Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice

[Rigby5]

That is ridiculous....No wonder it comes from the NYTimes....Look, it's real simple...In order to confer an actual right, that has to be done through a constitutional process via an amendment...ANYTHING other than that is an illusion subject to the whims of future courts or bodies of Congress....

Now, if the support for Roe is so popular as you and other libs say then an amendment shouldn't be a problem...In fact the only reason NOT to do so, is because you know it would fail to meet the standards.

Totally wrong.
Rights are not and can not ever be "conferred".
Rights have to already exist before any legislative body can legislation protection for those always existing, inherent, individual rights.
If rights can be arbitrarily "conferred", then there is nothing to prevent them from later be arbitrarily denied.
And rights are not supposed to be arbitrary at all.
They are supposed to be pre-existing and immutable.
If there was a legislative mistake, it can be corrected, but the abstraction is not supposed to change, ever.

There are NOT supposed to be any rights conferred by the Bill of Rights or any amendment.
Some rights are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but that is just to explicitly ensure the federal government is prevented from having any jurisdiction that might be used to infringe upon them.

I agree some sort of Bill of Individual Rights would be useful sometimes, but was deliberately never done because it is impossible. Individual rights are infinite, so can never be fully listed.
So the illusion of a Bill of Individual Rights must not be attempted, since it would allow many to incorrectly assume government grants rights, and that is wrong.
Government is supposed to obey rights, not grant them.
And government is supposed to be very limited in what they can have jurisdiction over at all.
Medical procedures by a woman, being something no government is supposed to have any jurisdiction over at all, in any way.

Does that leave abortion rights up to judicial precedent?
Yes of course, and that is the way is it supposed to be.
You let the experts handle it, with their appropriate appeals process.
You do not let the bull in the china shop politicians or executive start arresting people.

 

[Rigby5]

Why? Because they would rather use it as a wedge issue than fix it. Democrats have played their base and now they will either need to pass a bill or let states decide. Not sure why the Dems aren't trying to push a bill through.

I think they realize November is trouble for them and if they can divert, this wedge issue may keep them in power but don't expect them to pass a bill legalizing abortion.

Wrong.
Neither the federal nor state legislators have any authority to ever pen any legislation on abortion, either way.
It is a pre-existing personal and individual right that is supposed to be protected by Judicial Common Law Precedent.
Anyone who thinks you need physical legislation or that individual rights should be attempted to be documented, does not at all understand law in a republic.

 

[Rigby5]

The fact is that overturning Roe is not conservative, it's radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible - which is what conservatism has become.

Correct.
A conservative should realize individual rights are supposed to always pre-exist, do not need legislation, and no government level has any authority to legislate.
Trying to make medical choices illegal is incredibly invasive and illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Stop projecting, you imbecile libtard. As a conservative, I am far more a champion of women’s’ rights than you could ever hope to be.
But no claimed “right” of easy access to an abortion for the sake of convenience trumps the other person’s right to live.

The balance of your imbecile post was unworthy of further rebuttal. All you’re doing is repeating your pointless claims.

Fetuses are preborn babies.

Aborted preborn babies aren’t “medical waste” no matter how much you wish it were true. They are treated like garbage. But they were people.

Does not matter at all if fetuses are "preborn babies".
The rights of the woman are all that matter.
And you could just as easily claim any ovum is a "preborn baby" as well.
It is still legally totally up to a woman.
If a woman does not have the maternal instincts you wish they had, tough.
It can't be forced by law, police, prisons, etc.

 

[marvin martian]

“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.

The left are SO desperate to keep their black genocide program, they're resorting to violence again.

 

[BackAgain]

Yeah, somehow I doubt that. Conservatives don't believe in equal pay, don't support sexual harassment laws, fought against the VAWA.



No, they really weren't. They didn't have names, and the people who created them didn't want them.


You miss the point.

Most chicken eggs never become chickens, they become omelets.
most nuts never become trees, they get eaten by animals.
2/3rds of zygotes never attach to the uterine wall, and of the ones that do, 20% end up as miscarriages, 20% end up as abortions.

You see, it used to be that 10% of women died in childbirth, and 50% of children never saw the age of five.

We've made incredible medical advances since then. But that comes with a cost of a need to control population growth... Otherwise, we'd overrun the planet.

Nobody cares what you doubt or the nonsense your ascribe to conservatism.

 

[BackAgain]

In your personal, subjective opinion.

Don't use the authority of the state to force your personal, subjective opinion on others.

I will absolutely try to get the authority of the state to compel the saving of lives. And I don’t need your permission for that. In fact, it can and should be done despite your mindless objection. It is only your personal subjective opinion that seeks to deny basic human rights to preborn babies.

 

[BackAgain]

Does not matter at all if fetuses are "preborn babies".
The rights of the woman are all that matter.
And you could just as easily claim any ovum is a "preborn baby" as well.
It is still legally totally up to a woman.
If a woman does not have the maternal instincts you wish they had, tough.
It can't be forced by law, police, prisons, etc.

Wrong. It matters massively that preborn babies are people. Their right to life is the top priority on any sane and morally defensible hierarchy of values. The law must recognize that right as superseding your quibbling and illogical objection. It can indeed be accomplished by law. And to the extent that you don’t like it, tough shit.

 

[iceberg]

No, states have no authority to arbitrarily restrict individual rights.
That would allow the major race to enslave any minority they do not like.
That would allow the major religion to abuse any minority religion.

States do not have legal authority to dictate to a woman about what medical procedures they can or can not have done.

seems like they can.

build a bridge, get over it.

 

[lantern2814]

Abortion is contraception... as far as the women who have them are concerned, and they are the only ones who count.

Dobbs will be the worst thing that happened to the Right Wing in this country... it shows how crazy you are.

It's why Republicans avoided overturning Roe for 50 years.

No job Joe showing his stupidity again. No dumbfuck, abortions and contraception are NOT interchangeable. This will do nothing to stop the Republican landslide in November. The only idiots worked up about this were voting Dem anyway. If they aren’t busy committing felonies by trying to attack SCOTUS justices like Upchuck Schmucker asked them to.

 

[j-mac]

Totally wrong.
Rights are not and can not ever be "conferred".
Rights have to already exist before any legislative body can legislation protection for those always existing, inherent, individual rights.
If rights can be arbitrarily "conferred", then there is nothing to prevent them from later be arbitrarily denied.
And rights are not supposed to be arbitrary at all.
They are supposed to be pre-existing and immutable.
If there was a legislative mistake, it can be corrected, but the abstraction is not supposed to change, ever.

There are NOT supposed to be any rights conferred by the Bill of Rights or any amendment.
Some rights are mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but that is just to explicitly ensure the federal government is prevented from having any jurisdiction that might be used to infringe upon them.

I agree some sort of Bill of Individual Rights would be useful sometimes, but was deliberately never done because it is impossible. Individual rights are infinite, so can never be fully listed.
So the illusion of a Bill of Individual Rights must not be attempted, since it would allow many to incorrectly assume government grants rights, and that is wrong.
Government is supposed to obey rights, not grant them.
And government is supposed to be very limited in what they can have jurisdiction over at all.
Medical procedures by a woman, being something no government is supposed to have any jurisdiction over at all, in any way.

Does that leave abortion rights up to judicial precedent?
Yes of course, and that is the way is it supposed to be.
You let the experts handle it, with their appropriate appeals process.
You do not let the bull in the china shop politicians or executive start arresting people.

So, then you’ll agree if Roe is overturned?

 

[JoeB131]

So, then you’ll agree if Roe is overturned?

If Roe is overturned, women will keep getting abortions.

 

[Rigby5]

Why haven’t the Ds passed a law making abortion legal? Simple fix. They’ve had majorities in both houses several times since 1973. O and Joe said they would, but didn’t. Strange no?

That is not how law is supposed to work.
First of all, you are not supposed to or even need to ever make a law to legalize anything.
That is supposed to be the default, because rights are infinite and can NOT be listed.
Second is that the feds have zero medical jurisdiction, so congress can't legally pass such a law.

 

[Rigby5]

The creation of Roe v Wade was a radical issue. The Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist in the Constitution and expanded it to justify the killing of millions of unborn. Democrats said abortion would be rare and here we are in the 21st century talking about killing newborn babies by neglect.

NO RIGHTS are created by or "exist in the Constitution".
The Bill of Rights has always just been limits on federal jurisdiction, and nothing more.
The right to privacy, like all rights, pre-existed the American Revolution and are the basis for the revolution and republic.
Abortions were perfectly legal in the US until about 1860, when a powerful coalition of male medical professionals and religious organizations took it on.
There is no basis for making abortion illegal.
No one else but the woman and her doctor have any standing.
So no, Roe Vs Wade is not at all "radical".
Making abortion illegal is "radical".

 

[Rigby5]

giving the states back power.

I'm fine with that.

States are not supposed to, and never should have "power".
All government is only supposed to borrow the delegated authority that comes from individuals.
And since no individual has any right to say if someone else gets an abortion or not, then no government can have any say at all, ever.

 

[Rigby5]

That question is absurd.

There should be no government imposed firearm restrictions.
It should be up to parents to keep juveniles safe from firearms, not government.
Restricting ex-felons whose sentence is over, is totally and completely illegal, creatine a multi tiered population, and violating basic rights of defense.

 

[hadit]

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.

The vast majority of those weeping and wailing about the possibility of Roe being overturned will see absolutely no difference in their lives regarding abortion.

 

[Rigby5]

So, then you’ll agree if Roe is overturned?

No, there is no legal way to over turn Roe Vs Wade.
There is no government that has any standing.
Government is not a source of legal authority, and instead only borrows our legal authority, in order to better defend individual rights.
So for government to be able to stop abortion, then all individuals would have to already have that authority to do it themselves.
And clearly they do not.
So then government can't have it to borrow.

 

[Rigby5]

If Roe is overturned, women will keep getting abortions.

If Roe vs Wade is over turned, then government needs to be over turned.
See why gun control is a really bad idea?

 

[iceberg]

States are not supposed to, and never should have "power".
All government is only supposed to borrow the delegated authority that comes from individuals.
And since no individual has any right to say if someone else gets an abortion or not, then no government can have any say at all, ever.

Now apply that universally and have fun with the inevitable "this is different" bullshit.