Roe v. Wade will be overturned soon, and then abortion will be outlawed in most states...

[martybegan]

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

My issue is the balance between the right of the State to dictate to people vs. the right of people in general, born or unborn.

To me while abortion is abhorrent, banning it outright is a bridge I don't want to cross. My issue is Roe is horrible law, and States should be able to decide themselves based on our Constitution. I personally wouldn't vote to ban abortion, but to limit elective abortions to a certain time period.

To me the balance over "elective" abortions is viability. If you can figure it out by then, you are "pot committed" as the poker term goes.

In general I agree with you regarding viability and so does Roe.

Roe is terrible law, it made up a right out of thin air, and did nothing to end the debate on the issue.

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Roe is the progeny of Griswold and Eisenstadt – codifying the fact that the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments acknowledge a right to privacy, prohibiting government from interfering in personal, private matters such as whether to have a child or not, incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment.

Roe is sound, consistent case law limiting the authority of the state and protecting individual liberty.

Limiting government power was something conservatives once believed in – no longer the case the consequence of the authoritarian social right.

Roe is terrible law based on jiggery pokery. It made up a right and we have spent 4 decades now still fighting over it.

 

[martybegan]

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Interesting.

Do you agree that children have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws?

Can you explain why it is that you feel those rights should not begin when their lives do?

My issue is the balance between the right of the State to dictate to people vs. the right of people in general, born or unborn.

To me while abortion is abhorrent, banning it outright is a bridge I don't want to cross. My issue is Roe is horrible law, and States should be able to decide themselves based on our Constitution. I personally wouldn't vote to ban abortion, but to limit elective abortions to a certain time period.

To me the balance over "elective" abortions is viability. If you can figure it out by then, you are "pot committed" as the poker term goes.

So, is it fair to say that as far as you are concerned, a childs rights shouldn't begin when their life does but instead, their rights should not begin until they live long enough and develop past the arbitrarily decided point that you call "viability?"

Is that right?

I am saying that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that's where I draw the line. Others may draw the line elsewhere.

Never the less, you are in fact saying that (to you) a child is not a child / person until they live long enough and develop past that point. . . After which YOU won't deny them any longer.

Is that a fair summary of your position?

Come on Marty. Don't leave me hanging here.

Pretty much, it is a compromise between my moral side and my libertarian side.

Most compromises don't make people 100% happy with the result, and this is my case.

 

[martybegan]

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Or you could try minding your own business... that would work.

The Right Wing Libertarian... he wants government small enough to fit into a woman's hoo-ha.

Actually this is my federalism coming into play. I'm in NY so abortion will be just fine here.

And coming from a man who's a fan of BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE PEASANT, your ability to mind YOUR own business is just not there.

 

[martybegan]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

Women will vote for the Democrats to overturn the bullshit and given women back their rights. 80% of Americans favour safe, legal, abortions. 8 million more female voters than male.

Once again assuming all women are like you, and are a monolithic voting bloc.

Bans like Alabama would pass wouldn't fly without support from Women in the State, and a large number of them.

And a large portion of that 80% want elective abortions to be confined to the first trimester.

The women in Alabama are uneducated hillbillies. The educated women leave the state.

Wow, talk about a bigoted statement.

 

[martybegan]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Wrong again.

One’s Constitutional rights are not subject to his place of residence – including the right to privacy; the states have no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Indeed, there’s nothing to ‘sort out’ – the issue was resolved by Roe and subsequent privacy rights jurisprudence.

There is no "right" to privacy in the actual Constitution, as constructed under Roe. Roe is made up bullshit.

 

[Dragonlady]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Wrong again.

One’s Constitutional rights are not subject to his place of residence – including the right to privacy; the states have no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Indeed, there’s nothing to ‘sort out’ – the issue was resolved by Roe and subsequent privacy rights jurisprudence.

There is no "right" to privacy in the actual Constitution, as constructed under Roe. Roe is made up bullshit.

Says the Constitutional Law professor. NOT.

 

[martybegan]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I disagree with that. Let the States sort it out.

My view is I don't support banning abortion, but I do support regulating it. For cause only after say 1/2 way through the 2nd trimester, no free elective abortions, and parents have to be notified for minors.

Wrong again.

One’s Constitutional rights are not subject to his place of residence – including the right to privacy; the states have no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Indeed, there’s nothing to ‘sort out’ – the issue was resolved by Roe and subsequent privacy rights jurisprudence.

There is no "right" to privacy in the actual Constitution, as constructed under Roe. Roe is made up bullshit.

Says the Constitutional Law professor. NOT.

That's the great thing about this country, you don't need to be an expert to have an opinion on things.

And there are plenty of Constitutional scholars who think the same thing.

 

[DGS49]

Roe v. Wade is the most prominent and deservedly infamous case of judicial activism in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

They took a made-up, nonexistent "Constitutional right" and used it as the basis to make one of the most profound legislative decisions imaginable.

Although much of Roe v. Wade has already been gutted by later decisions (the idea that citizenship and personhood starts with the time of viability has gone out the window), it will not be overturned as long as C.J. Roberts is in place. He would NEVER vote to overturn a decision that has been on the books for almost 50 years, and relied on by every court in the land as binding precedent.

 

[Faun]

Roe v. Wade is the most prominent and deservedly infamous case of judicial activism in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

They took a made-up, nonexistent "Constitutional right" and used it as the basis to make one of the most profound legislative decisions imaginable.

Although much of Roe v. Wade has already been gutted by later decisions (the idea that citizenship and personhood starts with the time of viability has gone out the window), it will not be overturned as long as C.J. Roberts is in place. He would NEVER vote to overturn a decision that has been on the books for almost 50 years, and relied on by every court in the land as binding precedent.

Oh? So one is a citizen even before they're born? I'm sure there would be plenty of pregnant foreigners who'd love to know they no longer have to give birth in the U.S. to have an anchor baby. You might want to keep this to yourself.

 

[bendog]

In general I agree with you regarding viability and so does Roe.

Roe is terrible law, it made up a right out of thin air, and did nothing to end the debate on the issue.

It tried to reach a humane, social solution to a political problem. And that's generally not a role for courts.

I wouldn't call it humane for the fetus, but they tried to get the country past the issue, and failed miserably.

I think if it was left to the States the issue would have progressed naturally over time to be less restrictive, except for the States where they are wholly against it.

more humane than a coat hanger. But imo anything we can do to move to more contraception and earlier access to medical abortions with drugs is good

That's a weak argument.

It's a weak argument that an abortion in a clinic is more humane than one with a coathanger? Put the crack pipe down

 

[Jarlaxle]

It's a moronic question, ridiculous on the level of asking, "Andromeda checkerboard horcrux cattle diamond?"

Your "Appeal to Ridicule" fallacy is noted.

The answer to my obviously rhetorical question is "yes."

But we all know why pro-aborts resist their going on record and their acknowledgement of the biological fact that they have / had a "biological father."

Don't we.

Are you attempting to stumble upon a POINT?

Of course.

But I can't lead anyone to that point, if they are incapable or unwilling to go there.

Can I?

No point, then? Figured.

LOL

You are actually helping make the point by also avoiding the question.

Thanks.

The question is nonsensical. I have no idea what point you are attempting to stumble upon...do you?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Roe v. Wade is the most prominent and deservedly infamous case of judicial activism in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Naah.

 

[protectionist]

We need to give a woman alternatives to aborting a child

Maternal care, save her job, low cost childcare, housing assistance, healthcare

If you are unwilling to do so, don’t complain if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy

Here's a question.

Think really hard before you answer.

Why?

Why do you feel like that "needs" to be done?

Why?

Because if you give a woman no other alternatives, she will choose abortion.

Okay.

What's so wrong with her choosing to have an abortion?

Murder.

Constitutional right to make own reproductive decision.

1. No one has a constitutional right to commit murder.

2. The person being born has a constitutional right to the reproductive decision too.

 

[Faun]

We need to give a woman alternatives to aborting a child

Maternal care, save her job, low cost childcare, housing assistance, healthcare

If you are unwilling to do so, don’t complain if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy

Here's a question.

Think really hard before you answer.

Why?

Why do you feel like that "needs" to be done?

Why?

Because if you give a woman no other alternatives, she will choose abortion.

Okay.

What's so wrong with her choosing to have an abortion?

Murder.

Constitutional right to make own reproductive decision.

1. No one has a constitutional right to commit murder.

2. The person being born has a constitutional right to the reproductive decision too.

Thank goodness abortion isn't murder.

 

[martybegan]

Roe is terrible law, it made up a right out of thin air, and did nothing to end the debate on the issue.

It tried to reach a humane, social solution to a political problem. And that's generally not a role for courts.

I wouldn't call it humane for the fetus, but they tried to get the country past the issue, and failed miserably.

I think if it was left to the States the issue would have progressed naturally over time to be less restrictive, except for the States where they are wholly against it.

more humane than a coat hanger. But imo anything we can do to move to more contraception and earlier access to medical abortions with drugs is good

That's a weak argument.

It's a weak argument that an abortion in a clinic is more humane than one with a coathanger? Put the crack pipe down

The fetus still ends up dead. How humane is that?

 

[Chuz Life]

Your "Appeal to Ridicule" fallacy is noted.

The answer to my obviously rhetorical question is "yes."

But we all know why pro-aborts resist their going on record and their acknowledgement of the biological fact that they have / had a "biological father."

Don't we.

Are you attempting to stumble upon a POINT?

Of course.

But I can't lead anyone to that point, if they are incapable or unwilling to go there.

Can I?

No point, then? Figured.

LOL

You are actually helping make the point by also avoiding the question.

Thanks.

The question is nonsensical. I have no idea what point you are attempting to stumble upon...do you?

Go on record and find out.

 

[Faun]

Roe v. Wade is the most prominent and deservedly infamous case of judicial activism in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

They took a made-up, nonexistent "Constitutional right" and used it as the basis to make one of the most profound legislative decisions imaginable.

Although much of Roe v. Wade has already been gutted by later decisions (the idea that citizenship and personhood starts with the time of viability has gone out the window), it will not be overturned as long as C.J. Roberts is in place. He would NEVER vote to overturn a decision that has been on the books for almost 50 years, and relied on by every court in the land as binding precedent.

Oh? So one is a citizen even before they're born? I'm sure there would be plenty of pregnant foreigners who'd love to know they no longer have to give birth in the U.S. to have an anchor baby. You might want to keep this to yourself.

<crickets>

 

[Dragonlady]

We need to give a woman alternatives to aborting a child

Maternal care, save her job, low cost childcare, housing assistance, healthcare

If you are unwilling to do so, don’t complain if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy

Here's a question.

Think really hard before you answer.

Why?

Why do you feel like that "needs" to be done?

Why?

Because if you give a woman no other alternatives, she will choose abortion.

Okay.

What's so wrong with her choosing to have an abortion?

Murder.

Constitutional right to make own reproductive decision.

1. No one has a constitutional right to commit murder.

2. The person being born has a constitutional right to the reproductive decision too.

In a list of stupid arguments, this is the dumbest. No one has any rights until after they are born. Even the Bible doesn't consider you alive until you draw breath.

Not only that, the fetus doesn't have the intellectual ability to make decisions, so that argument fails utterly. We don't give infants a say in their medical treatment, so you give rights to the fetus that the living baby doesn't have.

Conservatives twisting themselves into pretzels to strip women of their right to self-determination.

 

[Chuz Life]

We need to give a woman alternatives to aborting a child

Maternal care, save her job, low cost childcare, housing assistance, healthcare

If you are unwilling to do so, don’t complain if she chooses to terminate the pregnancy

Here's a question.

Think really hard before you answer.

Why?

Why do you feel like that "needs" to be done?

Why?

Because if you give a woman no other alternatives, she will choose abortion.

Okay.

What's so wrong with her choosing to have an abortion?

Murder.

Constitutional right to make own reproductive decision.

1. No one has a constitutional right to commit murder.

2. The person being born has a constitutional right to the reproductive decision too.

In a list of stupid arguments, this is the dumbest. No one has any rights until after they are born. Even the Bible doesn't consider you alive until you draw breath.

Not only that, the fetus doesn't have the intellectual ability to make decisions, so that argument fails utterly. We don't give infants a say in their medical treatment, so you give rights to the fetus that the living baby doesn't have.

Conservatives twisting themselves into pretzels to strip women of their right to self-determination.

So why did supreme court justice Potter Stewart say this;

And why did the pro abortion lawyer (Sarah Weddington) AGREE with him on that?

 

[Terri4Trump]

...it will still be possible to get an abortion in certain states, like New York and California.

Question for pro-aborts: What's your plan for after this happens?

My plan will be to support a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution, so that it is recognized that all human beings, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death, have an inalienable right to life.

I agree.