Roe v. Wade was wrong and so is the SCOTUS.

[Asclepias]

If this is you sober, you should get drunk and see if it helps.

I doubt it. I would probably be a mean drunk. Never touched a drop in my life and never will.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

38 US states currently have laws that can treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide and the majority of these states allow for legal abortions. Why are the unborn treated as people with rights for purposes of murder but not for abortion?

 

[deannalw]

Until they're born...once you have forced that you no longer care about it

That's just an oft repeated dirty little lie the lefty babe killers throw out there to deflect from their maniacal wish to kill the unborn.

It has never been true.

 

[deannalw]

Good for you.

If you aren't going to carry someone else's child to term that they don't want then you're full of shit.

That is seriously one of the most idiotic arguments I've run across.

 

[Rigby5]

Women's right to abortion is necessitated by our right to consent, not by our right to privacy. Our right to privacy just means they don't have to give anyone an explanation. The way consent works is that it only applies to the person you give it to, it cannot automatically transfer to other people, and it can be withdrawn at any time. The consent that a woman gives to a man for sex only applies to him and for sex. It does not apply to other members of his family or his friends or to a pregnancy with a baby who doesn't even exist yet.

Unborn babies have the same rights and obligations as the rest of us. That includes a right to life and an obligation to obtain consent. Without consent, a pregnancy becomes an assault, just as sex becomes rape ,and it's irrelevant how or why it happens, whether by accident or intent. We all have a right to defend ourselves from assault and the government is obligated to support us in that endeavor. Since abortion is the only means of stopping a non-consensual pregnancy, the government is obligated to ensure that women always have access to it.

The purpose of abortion is to end a non-consensual pregnancy, not to kill the baby. The baby still has a right to life and abortionists should make every effort to save the baby without injury when possible while performing an abortion or face murder charges. If our goal is to save babies lives then we should only ban abortion until most babies can survive and to ban all methods of abortion that involve harming the baby- poisoning, exsanguination, dismemberment etc. Banning abortion after the heartbeat is not about saving babies, it's about persecuting women under religious doctrine. There is no way to ban abortion without establishing a precedent that women have no right to self defense and therefore no right to consent.

Probably true.
With the emotional baggage removed, then pregnancy is really about a parasite.
The emotional baggage is good, but has to be at the time of the woman's choosing.

 

[Rigby5]

Roe v Wade is going down the drain... So you can get a grip on yourself and

I don't think so.
Texas is trying a loophole, but it is not going to work I think.
R v W is here to stay.
People will die over this if necessary.

 

[Dr Grump]

Decisions about abortion should have been left in the hands of the legislative branch, at the state or federal level..

No, it should be left up to the woman...

 

[Rigby5]

That's just an oft repeated dirty little lie the lefty babe killers throw out there to deflect from their maniacal wish to kill the unborn.

It has never been true.

There are a lot of people who should never have been born.

 

[Rigby5]

IMHO, Roe v Wade was classic judicial activism, legislating from the bench. Nowhere in our Constitution does it mention a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, and BTW nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the right to privacy either. Decisions about abortion should have been left in the hands of the legislative branch, at the state or federal level. IOW, it was a bullshit ruling by a liberal court that should tell you what will happen if the democrats ever gain control of the SCOTUS or pack the court with enough liberals. And don't think for a second they won't do exactly that as soon as they have enough votes to abolish the filibuster.

You do not understand law or the constitution.
Rights are inherent and exist first, that is why we can make a constitution, and the constitution does NOT list rights at all.
They are infinite according to the founders.
The legislature is NOT the source of legal authority.
The people are.
And no one has the authority to make anyone else carry a fetus to term.

 

[Asclepias]

That is seriously one of the most idiotic arguments I've run across.

Somehow I figured you would make an idiotic excuse like that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don't think so.
Texas is trying a loophole, but it is not going to work I think.
R v W is here to stay.
People will die over this if necessary.

2019-2020 Planned Parenthood service numbers. Number of abortions (medical and surgical): 354,871. Total number of abortions per week: 6,824. Adoption referrals: 2,667. Ratio of adoption referrals to abortions: 1 per 133.

Abortion Statistics | ALL

The American Life League is the oldest grassroots pro-life education organization in the US, and has been defending the sacredness of life since 1979.

www.all.org

 

[Asclepias]

2019-2020 Planned Parenthood service numbers. Number of abortions (medical and surgical): 354,871. Total number of abortions per week: 6,824. Adoption referrals: 2,667. Ratio of adoption referrals to abortions: 1 per 133.

Abortion Statistics | ALL

The American Life League is the oldest grassroots pro-life education organization in the US, and has been defending the sacredness of life since 1979.

www.all.org

So basically you want 354,871 children abused, put up for adoption, or placed in foster homes and you dont want to be taxed to pay for it.

 

[Dr Grump]

So basically you want 354,871 children abused, put up for adoption, or placed in foster homes and you dont want to be taxed to pay for it.

I remember seeing a stand up piece by Robin Williams that went something like this:

Williams (voice of anti abortionist): All foetus's have the right to be born. Each child is precious and will be loved by all of us.
Williams (voice of mother): Ok, I've had the baby, but I can't afford to keep her. Now what?
Williams (as anti abortionist): Not my problem, you drain-on-society slut.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unborn babies have the same rights and obligations as the rest of us.

Wrong.

Prior to birth, an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections:

‘…an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life." [n.2] This has been and, by the Court's holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive autonomy.’

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

IMHO, Roe v Wade was classic judicial activism, legislating from the bench. Nowhere in our Constitution does it mention a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, and BTW nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the right to privacy either. Decisions about abortion should have been left in the hands of the legislative branch, at the state or federal level. IOW, it was a bullshit ruling by a liberal court that should tell you what will happen if the democrats ever gain control of the SCOTUS or pack the court with enough liberals. And don't think for a second they won't do exactly that as soon as they have enough votes to abolish the filibuster.

You’re entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong and ignorant.

Roe is the appropriate, logical progeny of early Court rulings concerning the right to privacy and reproductive autonomy: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972).

It’s a long-standing Constitutional principle that the state has no authority to dictate to citizens whether they may have a child or not, and that the state has no authority to interfere in that decision-making process.

Roe is in no manner ‘judicial activism.’

 

[justinacolmena]

Women's right to abortion is necessitated by our right to consent, not by our right to privacy

I don't even care of you're male or female at that hour of the night. I'm going for my guns before anybody gets pregnant.

 

[Orangecat]

"Provide for the general welfare...."

Healthcare would be individual welfare, not general.

 

[Asclepias]

Healthcare would be individual welfare, not general.

It would be general from the POV of the constitution since its not an individual.

 

[Orangecat]

It would be general from the POV of the constitution since its not an individual.

The Constitution does not have a point of view. It's a document of words, and words have meaning. A person's individual welfare is not the same as welfare for the general population. People have individual healthcare needs. Some need no healthcare.

 

[Asclepias]

The Constitution does not have a point of view. Words have meaning, and a person's individual welfare is not the same as welfare for the general population. People have individual healthcare needs.

The constitution absolutely has a POV. If it didn't then it wouldn't exist dummy. I'm not going to indulge your wrongheaded opinion. Believe what you wish.