Republicans fail to make any rational argument why society must force full term gestation on all women. Their failed arguments are examined here:

[NotfooledbyW]

The "right to privacy" doesn't exist.

You say we law abiding American citizens don’t have a right prevent the government from intruding into our private lives without due process. That is absurd.

Dobbs did not undo “due process” because it cant. It merely said women don’t have a right to a medical procedure that states regulate. Dobbs did not decide that a fetus has a right not to be aborted because states can permit the medical procedure of abortion in states that respect due process and a right to privacy that guess with it.

women do not have due process in Texas when abortion is banned: and they are deprived of personal family planning.




In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court found a fundamental right of privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court interpreted this right to cover women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, but only before a fetus is viable outside the womb. In 2022, however, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, finding that the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion. This allowed the states to resume regulating the area.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

You say we law abiding American citizens don’t have a right prevent the government from intruding into our private lives without due process. That is absurd.

I'm saying the Constitution doesn't address privacy. It's left up to the states. That's how our system is intended to work. Whatever isn't covered by the Constitution falls to the states. The feds should not have the ability to spy on us continuously, but they do because the states have not prevented them from doing so. This is the problem with centralizing power. When the federal government was much weaker, the worst government you had to contend with was local. The worst case scenario was that you would have to flee the state you're in due to oppression. You have to flee the entire country to escape the feds.

So, right off the bat, we clearly don't have a right to privacy, because if we did, the Patriot Act and FISA in its current form would be deemed unconstitutional. They haven't. However, none of this would have been an issue to start with if we had kept the federal government small.

Dobbs did not undo “due process” because it cant. It merely said women don’t have a right to a medical procedure that states regulate. Dobbs did not decide that a fetus has a right not to be aborted because states can permit the medical procedure of abortion in states that respect due process and a right to privacy that guess with it.

women do not have due process in Texas when abortion is banned: and they are deprived of personal family planning.

And a state can decide that a fetus has that right. This is the premise for many of the restrictions on abortion in some states.

In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court found a fundamental right of privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court interpreted this right to cover women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, but only before a fetus is viable outside the womb. In 2022, however, the Supreme Court reversed this decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, finding that the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion. This allowed the states to resume regulating the area.

Due process could apply to a fetus as well, however.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And if she's willing to recant a story over a relatively low sum, do you really trust her original testimony?

Her original testimony had no bearing on the decision.

McCorvey first filed the case in 1969, when she was pregnant with her third child and claimed that she had been raped. But the case was rejected and she was forced to give birth.​

 

[Lone Wanderer]

Her original testimony had no bearing on the decision.

McCorvey first filed the case in 1969, when she was pregnant with her third child and claimed that she had been raped. But the case was rejected and she was forced to give birth.​

I should rephrase. Do you think we should trust any testimony by someone so easily bought?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I'm saying the Constitution doesn't address privacy

The Constitution does not address abortion or the right to life of the unborn.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

The Constitution does not address abortion or the right to life of the unborn.

Yes, but states can. And the privacy that the Constitution covers is clearly very limited in that ruling's interpretation.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I should rephrase. Do you think we should trust any testimony by someone so easily bought?

It doesn’t matter because she originally used her third pregnancy to challenge Texas Law. Then she was paid $500,000 by Evangelical Christians to say she opposed abortions. Perhaps she really did, perhaps she really did not, She grew up in poverty, She would’ve been a fool not to take take Jesus’ money from the Evangelicals

The Evangelicals are the ones who should be denounced,

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, but states can. And the privacy that the Constitution covers is clearly very limited in that ruling's interpretation.

The privacy related to due process is intact. Dobbs is wrong not Roe.

 

[HeyNorm]

It doesn’t matter because she originally used her third pregnancy to challenge Texas Law. Then she was paid $500,000 by Evangelical Christians to say she opposed abortions. Perhaps she really did, perhaps she really did not, She grew up in poverty, She would’ve been a fool not to take take Jesus’ money from the Evangelicals

The Evangelicals are the ones who should be denounced,

A man who would sell out his own sex should be denounced.

If abortion is legal, then men should be freed from the bondage of gestation and child birth.

Only if abortion is illegal, and only after a dna test determines who the father is, should men be compelled by the government to pay support.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Due process could apply to a fetus as well, however.

A woman is not a government. When the fetus is part of her body and without its own consciousness she is not required to give due process to what she does not want to be there.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, but states can.

Do you believe the states can deprive a law abiding citizen of liberty without cause?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And a state can decide that a fetus has that right

A fetus is inside an individual’s body and according to Dr. James Dobson “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being”.

Even James Dobson, who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged after the Roe decision that the Bible was silent on the matter and that it was plausible for an evangelical to hold that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being”.

Lone Wanderer said: If you want to accomplish something meaningful, you have to ignore the left altogether.

 

[Frankenstein]

We will never have an honest debate on this issue unless legal abortion includes men’s rights as well.

So let’s have a vote that says, if abortion is legal, men cannot be compelled to support a child the woman refuses to abort. And if abortion is illegal, then the man who participated in the act may be compelled to support the child by the courts.

It’s just common sense and equal protection under the law.

If women, and I’m told most women want this as a right, I say, let’s vote. But they must assume the responsibility as well.

Do ya think most would vote for abortion to be legal, or banned?

I think many, maybe not most would still vote for it to be legal, based on the fact that the state still intervenes with our tax dollars to raise said child.

 

[Frankenstein]

Men do not have an equal stake in pregnancy. That's ridiculous and a failure of basic biology.

That is biology, when two people engage in sex the biology is pregnancy can occur, and the female carries it, there is no way men should then forfeit their rights

 

[NotfooledbyW]

there is no way men should then forfeit their rights

What rights are those exactly?

 

[Frankenstein]

What rights are those exactly?

The rights to their unborn children, try to keep up

 

[Curried Goats]

That is biology, when two people engage in sex the biology is pregnancy can occur, and the female carries it, there is no way men should then forfeit their rights

That's a jumble of confused ideas. Legal rights and biology are two separate things. Men have no right to a woman's body, even if they did contribute to her pregnancy and having an equal stake in fertilization isn't the same thing as having an equal stake in pregnancy. You are a failure of both disciplines.

 

[Frankenstein]

That's a jumble of confused ideas. Legal rights and biology are two separate things. Men have no right to a woman's body, even if they did contribute to her pregnancy and having an equal stake in fertilization isn't the same thing as having an equal stake in pregnancy. You are a failure of both disciplines.

no that is just what you want to believe, that child may have more traits of the father than the mother, he should have equal say in the child's life. It is a special right that women have been given, they understand that, and will fight for the right to be the only ones with a special right.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So let’s have a vote that says, if abortion is legal, men cannot be compelled to support a child the woman refuses to abort. And if abortion is illegal, then the man who participated in the act may be compelled to support the child by the courts.

Whatever isn't covered by the Constitution falls to the states.

It falls to the individual as well when an inalienable right is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights such as the right of bodily autonomy.


I suspect your Calvinistic Christianity makes you suspect of individuals having rights outside of your religious belief if not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

 

[Frankenstein]

It falls to the individual as well when an inalienable right is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights such as the right of bodily autonomy.


I suspect your Calvinistic Christianity makes you suspect of individuals having rights outside of your religious belief if not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

She had that right right up until she willingly entered into a sexual encounter where the man is equally involved!