Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Lisa558]

The right to privacy in an inalienable right, given to the people by the creator.

The “right to privacy” was distorted in order to force all states to allow abortions. Who gets to decide what rights they are specifically?

i could use that excuse to do whatever I want….what I do is private!

 

[postman]

The “right to privacy” was distorted in order to force all states to allow abortions. Who gets to decide what rights they are specifically?

The creator endowed every person with certain inalienable rights, as the declaration of independence laid out.

And the Constitution codified in Amendment 10
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Power to the people !!!

 

[Lisa558]

The creator endowed every person with certain inalienable rights, as the declaration of independence laid out.

And the Constitution codified in Amendment 10
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Power to the people !!!

And YOU get to decide for everyone that killing one’s unborn child is a right? NO YOU DO NOT.

 

[postman]

i could use that excuse to do whatever I want….what I do is private!

If they are acts between two consenting adults.

 

[Lisa558]

If they are acts between two consenting adults.

We aren’t talking about sex. We are talking about people in liberal states forcing people in conservative states to allow abortion-on-demand.

 

[postman]

And YOU get to decide for everyone that killing one’s unborn child is a right? NO YOU DO NOT.

The constitution originally gave to one group of "the people", the right to take the life, liberty or property of another group of "the people".

So such exercise by "the people" over something that isn't even a member of "the people". clearly has constitutional sanction.

 

[postman]

We aren’t talking about sex. We are talking about people in liberal states forcing people in conservative states to allow abortion-on-demand.

Acts between two consenting adults is not limited to sex (you seem obsessed Rorschach)

 

[Lisa558]

Acts between two consenting adults is not limited to sex (you seem obsessed Rorschach)

So you’re saying the mother can kill the baby because it’s not a consenting adult? Then let’s kill whatever kids we want up to the age of 16.

 

[Lisa558]

I can see why the leaker did this. The anger and arrogance of leftists who insist that rulings go THEIR way is so extreme - together with the out and out threats of violence against the justices if they don’t yield - will apply the type of pressure that will make them fearful of making the correct, Constitutional decision. We’ve already seen how weak Robert’s is - I suspect the leftists have dirt on him - the way he caved to Obamacare - so I’m thinking that Roberts will be able to twist the arms of another couple of justices, and they’ll come out with some cowardly, wishy-washing decision.

And with that, the Democrats will have destroyed the sanctity of thr Supreme Court, knowing that any pending decision will be subjected to their tantrums and threats of violence.

And to think all this was enabled by the Dems weaponizing a virus to install a puppet president and push through their destruction of this country.

 

[schmidlap]

You ironically made his point.

You only respect women who agree with you or who will vote your way.
How many times must we say this?

ROE IS NOT CODIFIED LAW
Also, imagine how authoritarian and repressive it would be if I had the power to strip you of your right to vote on this particular issue, one way or the other?

That's what the liberal argument is. Let Roe stand so people nationwide are forbidden to vote on it, one way or another.

They are scared of the ones who vote against it, as are you.
Also, imagine how authoritarian and repressive it would be if I had the power to strip you of your right to vote on this particular issue, one way or the other?

That's what the liberal argument is. Let Roe stand so people nationwide are forbidden to vote on it, one way or another.

They are scared of the ones who vote against it, as are you.

Women in America have exercised reproductive freedom under law for half-a-century, consistent with the progress achieved in other advanced, democratic nations.

Authoritarian statists are hellbent upon arrogating that freedom. (See Iran, Egypt, Honduras, El Salvador)

Such draconian Big Government intrusion into such personal matters is opposed by most Americans.

Such a retrogression in the rights of women is evocative of the Taliban.

The nearly two-thirds of Americans who want Roe v. Wade kept in place say they feel angry and discouraged about the prospect that it may be overturned, describing that as "a danger to women" and as a threat to rights more generally. Most Americans, and particularly younger women, think it would also lead to restrictions on birth control and family planning choices. Going forward, most would like to see a federal law passed that protects abortion and in their own states, two-thirds want it to be legal, at least in most cases.​

​

Those who imagines that a microscopic, mindless amalgam of cells is an homunculus are free to preach their notion as stridently as they desire, but their need to force women to submit to politicians by coercion is emblematic of their falure to persuade.

 

[schmidlap]

I agree. Meant as a joke, when one develops cancer should we also go to the bureaucrats or go to our doctor. Abortion laws have no place in our society. Women should not be second class citizens, that doesn't happen in first class ( free ) Nations.

The zealots, especially the weird worshippers, venerate their politicians' pronouncements in climatology, epidemiology, embryology - and other scientific disciplines in which they are abysmally unqualified - as divine revelation.

Their yearning for State control seems unquenchable.

 

[forkup]

No, the people are not deciding. A slim majority of the entire nation wants to go against the Constitution, and a large minority of the entire nation want it to revert to states’ rights, as would be the correct decision.

As far as “if I don’t want an abortion, don’t have one,” that’s anither simplistic liberal statement I’ve heard before. If I think it’s wrong that someone robbed a neighbor‘s house, would you say “if you think it’s wrong to rob a neighbor’s house, don’t do it”?

It is not simplistic. It is the heart of the matter. In the US "the people" consists of... people.

Your position is that the entire nation isn't qualified to decide if everybody can have an abortion. The people themselves aren't qualified. Instead you believe the States should be.

As to constitutionality. In the seventies 7 out of 9 judges decided that it was constitutional. Now, presumably 5 out of 9 are deciding it isn't. That is 11 to 7 in total that disagree with you. More if I count all the times Roe vs Wade was upheld.

Not only that. As I said. The legal argumentation is so strained that the judge making the argument puts in caveats in his own ruling.

This is about one thing and one thing only. You personally don't like abortion. You realise it's a minority opinion and as such are incapable of enforcing it on other people. So you support the only alternative you have and that's enforcing it on some people.

 

[Lisa558]

It is not simplistic. It is the heart of the matter. In the US "the people" consists of... people.

Your position is that the entire nation isn't qualified to decide if everybody can have an abortion. The people themselves aren't qualified. Instead you believe the States should be.

As to constitutionality. In the seventies 7 out of 9 judges decided that it was constitutional. Now, presumably 5 out of 9 are deciding it isn't. That is 11 to 7 in total that disagree with you. More if I count all the times Roe vs Wade was upheld.

Not only that. As I said. The legal argumentation is so strained that the judge making the argument puts in caveats in his own ruling.

This is about one thing and one thing only. You personally don't like abortion. You realise it's a minority opinion and as such are incapable of enforcing it on other people. So you support the only alternative you have and that's enforcing it on some people.

It hardly qualifies as a minority opinion. The last Gallop poll was 47% think it’s morally acceptable and 46% think it’s morally wrong, with a few percentage undecided. In a nation evenly divided, we should let the people in each state set their own laws, as the Constituion said, rather than have one blanket policy that meets the liberals’ demands.

Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable

A record-high 47% of U.S. adults think abortion is morally acceptable, while 46% believe it is morally wrong. U.S. adults are also split in their self-identification as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

news.gallup.com

 

[forkup]

It hardly qualifies as a minority opinion. The last Gallop poll was 47% think it’s morally acceptable and 46% think it’s morally wrong, with a few percentage undecided. In a nation evenly divided, we should let the people in each state set their own laws, as the Constituion said, rather than have one blanket policy that meets the liberals’ demands.

Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable

A record-high 47% of U.S. adults think abortion is morally acceptable, while 46% believe it is morally wrong. U.S. adults are also split in their self-identification as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

news.gallup.com

Something can be considered morally wrong by someone yet still be acceptable. I think for instance voting for Trump is morally wrong, chances are you disagree. I don't like abortion. I find it morally questionable in a lot of circumstances, yet I have a problem with enforcing that opinion on people I don't know and whose circumstances I don't share.

I realise that is my personal opinion and as such I accept that others don't have to share it. Nor is abortion a yes or no question. I can imagine that you yourself might even see circumstances where it should be allowed.

The support for Roe vs Wade by the way is higher than a slim majority.

 

[Lisa558]

Something can be considered morally wrong by someone yet still be acceptable. I think for instance voting for Trump is morally wrong, chances are you disagree. I don't like abortion. I find it morally questionable in a lot of circumstances, yet I have a problem with enforcing that opinion on people I don't know and whose circumstances I don't share.

I realise that is my personal opinion and as such I accept that others don't have to share it. Nor is abortion a yes or no question. I can imagine that you yourself might even see circumstances where it should be allowed.

The support for Roe vs Wade by the way is higher than a slim majority.

If half the people think abortion is morally acceptable, and half the people think it is morally wrong, as the Gallop poll showed, then we shouldn’t have the half saying it’s acceptable demand that it be available for EVERYONE, in whatever state they live. That’s up to the people in the states to decide. Otherwise, you are having the majority in California who think it’s fine demand that the residents in Alabama, who think it’s wrong, still make it available.

The liberals MAY get their way, though, as I said up a post. There have been such threats of violence against the justices made by leftists, including senators warning of what will be should the SCOTUS not yield to their demands, that the wishy-washy Court, which has already demonstrated its cowardice, may yield to threats of violence.

And then the libs will know that threatening the lives of justices gets them their way, and we no longer have a woeking Supreme Court. That Biden doesn’t speak out against this is despicable.

 

[forkup]

If half the people think abortion is morally acceptable, and half the people think it is morally wrong, as the Gallop poll showed, then we shouldn’t have the half saying it’s acceptable demand that it be available for EVERYONE, in whatever state they live. That’s up to the people in the states to decide. Otherwise, you are having the majority in California who think it’s fine demand that the residents in Alabama, who think it’s wrong, still make it available.

The liberals MAY get their way, though, as I said up a post. There have been such threats of violence against the justices made by leftists, including senators warning of what will be should the SCOTUS not yield to their demands, that the wishy-washy Court, which has already demonstrated its cowardice, may yield to threats of violence.

And then the libs will know that threatening the lives of justices gets them their way, and we no longer have a woeking Supreme Court. That Biden doesn’t speak out against this is despicable.

Of course we should. If half believes something is wrong they won't do it. The other half can. There is no problem, unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Democrats HATE children, which is why they use the phrase "unwanted child" so bitterly, so often, so irresponsibly. Fathers have NO RIGHTS but bitter, hateful, anti-science Democrats don't give a **** about babies or the fathers who contributed half of the children's DNA called so ignorantly "my body" by haters.

 

[LibertyKid]

It hardly qualifies as a minority opinion. The last Gallop poll was 47% think it’s morally acceptable and 46% think it’s morally wrong, with a few percentage undecided. In a nation evenly divided, we should let the people in each state set their own laws, as the Constituion said, rather than have one blanket policy that meets the liberals’ demands.

Record-High 47% in U.S. Think Abortion Is Morally Acceptable

A record-high 47% of U.S. adults think abortion is morally acceptable, while 46% believe it is morally wrong. U.S. adults are also split in their self-identification as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."

news.gallup.com

And that is the entire point. The constitution set the boundary to allow the people to vote in each state for those issues and rights not specified by the constitution. I'm sorry that some feel that this isn't fair, but that is supposed to be the way it's done. There are plenty of other topics that get voted on and are decided by the people and we are perfectly fine with that. And when a topic is this divisive, why shouldn't it be voted on and given to the state and the people to decide?

This issue is not one sided at all despite the narrative that is being espoused.

 

[Lisa558]

Of course we should. If half believes something is wrong they won't do it. The other half can. There is no problem, unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others.

What you still don’t get is that’s not how our country works. It goes state by state. So if the majority of the people in a state think abortion is wrong, or needs tighter restrictions, that’s for them to say. Unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others in a state you don’t live in.

Otherwise, why have states at all? We would just have one central government and one large country. Our founders wisely realized that there is too much of a difference among people to allow a blanket policy for every one.

 

[LibertyKid]

What you still don’t get is that’s not how our country works. It goes state by state. So if half the people in a state think abortion is wrong, or needs tighter restrictions, that’s for them to say. Unless someone (YOU) want to enforce your personal beliefs onto others in a state you don’t live in.

Otherwise, why have states at all? We would just have one central government and one large country. Our founders wisely realized that there is too much of a difference among people to allow a blanket policy for every one.

And this is another logical point, which if it was up to most far-left, they would do away with states their ability to govern themselves. They would want a totalitarian government to rule over them and decide what is best for them instead of allowing the people to decide.

I think a good portion of the US population are ignorant to how our Federal and State governments are to be ran. And part of that ignorance is our MSM's focus on POTUS. It's as if the POTUS is the only governance of our country. In fact, our local and state politics should be a greater focus than our national federal government because our local governments should have a great impact on our lives. But most could care less about local politics because they just don't care. They will follow the MSM lead to feed them what they should know.