Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Lisa558]

Which creats 50 different experiments or countries within a country.

Abortion will not end if Roe v Wade is ovetturned. Almost half the states have no abortion bans at all. Nothing changes there. In mainly red states. Each state will decide whete they will dtaw the line on where life begins. Women who want abortions after that point will have to travel.

Under Roe v Wade States van legally have laws over the viability set in that case.

Precisely. Liberals aren’t arguing for a woman’s right for an abortion - which will still be wildly available - they are arguing for a convenient abortion.

 

[forkup]

The sad thing is that this should not even be debated at this point. The leaker should be punished, and the SCOTUS should, G-d willing, issue the same decision they would have had they not been threatened with violence and death if they don’t yield.

And yes, there are different ways to interpret the Constitution, or we never would have had the decision we did 50 years ago. Now it’s being reviewed, rightly so.

You have one interpretation….I have the other. Just as half the people think abortion is OK, and the other half don’t. In a country so evenly split, it seems quite arrogant for the liberals to demand that THEIR way be the law of the land in every state.

Again, I just hope the justices don’t change their opinion under pressure from leftists threatening violence.

What's more arrogant? Someone who allows an individual person to make a decision for themselves. Or someone who insists they don't have the right to make that decision for themselves because he or she feels the decision should be made on the basis of THEIR interpretation of a document written in a time were women were NOT full citizens.

 

[TemplarKormac]

View attachment 642342

You should read this. It explains so much about how otherwise intelligent, educated people willingly become morons when their ideology gets in the way.

This might be interesting.

 

[Lisa558]

What's more arrogant? Someone who allows an individual person to make a decision for themselves. Or someone who insists they don't have the right to make that decision for themselves because he or she feels the decision should be made on the basis of THEIR interpretation of a document written in a time were women were NOT full citizens.

You are like a stuck pig. The country is set up for individuals within each state to set up the laws. Majority rules, on a state by state basis.

 

[forkup]

You are like a stuck pig. The country is set up for individuals within each state to set up the laws. Majority rules, on a state by state basis.

Not the issue. You are claiming I'm arrogant while I'm holding no one captive to my opinion. You on the other hand feel you have the right to do so with at least some people. I don't care if you feel you have the right for whatever reason.

 

[Lisa558]

Not the issue. You are claiming I'm arrogant while I'm holding no one captive to my opinion. You on the other hand feel you have the right to do so with at least some people. I don't care if you feel you have the right for whatever reason.

No, you don’t get the reason the Constitution said that anything not specifically delineated as being under the authority of the central government default to state’s rights.

You do not have any say in how people in Bible Belt states set their laws.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This might be interesting.

It talks about specific intellectual morons - and not all from the left, if I remember correctly - but it gives insight into how this works for just about anyone blinded by ideology.

 

[konradv]

No, you don’t get the reason the Constitution said that anything not specifically delineated as being under the authority of the central government default to state’s rights.

You do not have any say in how people in Bible Belt states set their laws.

It’s time to get some people voted out. If the Republicans had a gender gap had before, it may be a chasm now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you are not intelligent enough to connect the dots between unwanted children and adoption, there is no point in continuing, you're not bright enough to interact with.

You're saying I'm not bright whilst not explaining any difference between abortion and adoption?

Okay. I get it. You believe that she somehow wants other women to give birth without considering how those children are taken care of in the future.

We just got done observing Mother's Day. And since she's a mother, she would naturally know how to care for adopted children the same way she would if she gave birth to them. The charge is the same. It's not that she wouldn't or couldn't adopt children, she can't. She made the decision to have children as opposed to adopting them. Two children were already an enormous strain on her personal resources.

Naturally, if faced with the prospect of having to adopt children, she would be readily prepared with experience. You assumed she couldn't (as a mother who gave birth to two children naturally) adopt children. Giving birth to children naturally gives a woman a unique perspective on the value of life that apparently you fail to grasp a male member of the human species.

I cannot believe this is the argument you're making

"You don't want women to abort children so why won't you adopt them?"

How totally asinine and completely ignorant. Your attempt to sound objective and thoughtful has failed.

 

[forkup]

No, you don’t get the reason the Constitution said that anything not specifically delineated as being under the authority of the central government default to state’s rights.

You do not have any say in how people in Bible Belt states set their laws.

Again. YOUR judge, who made the ruling in YOUR favor, does not agree with your reasoning.

Page 5 of his ruling.

"That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.

www.politico.com

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, you don’t get the reason the Constitution said that anything not specifically delineated as being under the authority of the central government default to state’s rights.

You do not have any say in how people in Bible Belt states set their laws.

Actually the tenth amendment does say anything about " specifically delineated " rights. The are enumerated rights but there are also unenumerated rights established by case law that flow from the enumerated rights such as the right to due process and equal protection under the law.

Penumbra is also an interesting concept

Penumbra is the implied rights provided in the U.S. constitution, or in a rule. Literally, the term penumbra was created to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. The term penumbra is used in legal sense as a metaphor describing implied powers of the federal government.

Penumbra Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.​

definitions.uslegal.com/p/penumbra/

 

[Lisa558]

Again. YOUR judge, who made the ruling in YOUR favor, does not agree with your reasoning.

Page 5 of his ruling.

"That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.

www.politico.com

All that says is that SOME rights that are not mentioned in the
Constitution are held to guarantee but that they must be deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. The right to abort one’s child is NOT deeply rooted as such, which is where he was going with this.

P.S. I am NOT reading the leaked document. Shame on you for publishing something that should not have yet seen the light of day.

 

[forkup]

All that says is that SOME rights that are not mentioned in the
Constitution are held to guarantee but that they must be deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. The right to abort one’s child is NOT deeply rooted as such, which is where he was going with this.

P.S. I am NOT reading the leaked document. Shame on you for publishing something that should not have yet seen the light of day.

Lol, it is public. If you really were concerned about propriety you wouldn't be arguing with me. So save me the faux-outrage.

So know you are changing your argument? From, well-unenumerated rights automatically fall to the States. To, well some unenumerated rights do?

Any more goalposts you want moving?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, yes, it is, considering that my money is taken to support them.

Yeah, no. It was hers too. She chose to birth children instead of adopting them. She actually saved you money by birthing them and paying for them herself.

Speak, blind man, speak! Prove that you are not only blind in sight but in mind!

 

[Lisa558]

Lol, it is public. If you really were concerned about propriety you wouldn't be arguing with me. So save me the faux-outrage.

So know you are changing your argument? From, well-unenumerated rights automatically fall to the States. To, well some unenumerated rights do?

Any more goalposts you want moving?

And you are deciding which rights? Clearly, the right to terminate a life is not a “right” intended by the Constitution. Why do liberals think THEY get to determine which rights are guaranteed, and conservatives have to STFU about it? Oh right, I forgot….silencing.

A child is about to be robbed of a life here on Earth, and your big concern is that it shouldn’t be inconvenient for women who live in states that will have restrictions, and who most likely were irresponsible with birth control, and then took too long to make up her mind. If her baby is about to be killed, she can get on a GD bus.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yeah, no. It was hers too. She chose to birth children instead of adopting them. She actually saved you money by birthing them and paying for them herself.

Speak, blind man, speak! Prove that you are not only blind in sight but in mind!

Are you on some sort of drugs?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Jarlaxle

Is this the best you can do?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you on some sort of drugs?

I get high on reality often.

What about you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

All that says is that SOME rights that are not mentioned in the
Constitution are held to guarantee but that they must be deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition. The right to abort one’s child is NOT deeply rooted as such, which is where he was going with this.

P.S. I am NOT reading the leaked document. Shame on you for publishing something that should not have yet seen the light of day.

Tradition evolve and change. Remember when women needed a husbands permission to apply for credit or get a job?. Remember when they could not vote?

An example of this is the fact that wives needed their husbands’ permission to do many things, including getting a job. There are also examples of requiring a husband’s signature to obtain a credit card. Nurses from the 1970s.

40 Basic Rights Women Did Not Have Until The 1970s​

Your argument ( And Alito's) is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I get high on reality often.

What about you?

You wouldn't know reality if it crawled up your nose.