Roe v Wade: plaintiff's death highlights weakening of abortion rights in US

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Publius_Bob, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would like to see the issue of what rights are granted to whom and when by a Constitutional process. One way or the other is fine with me. Then once it has been settled by Amendment the DEM's and the GOP's can stop feuding over it.

    Right now we have bad SCOTUS law called Roe V. Wade which half of the nation does not like.

    If Roe V. Wade is overturned by an ultra conservative strict constructionist SCOTUS appointed by DJ Trump then the half that is now happy will quickly become unhappy and the current unhappy half will become very happy. Overall nothing would be solved however. It would still be a regular feud between the two major parties.

    Neither party really cares about feti (plural of fetus) but they are both in it for the votes.

    Three Amendments could be drafted and sent to each of the states. One for nationwide pro choice, one for nationwide pro life, and the third for States' rights on a state by state basis.

    Whichever two get the most votes can be voted on in the final tally.

    Then the Constitution would finally mention women and their uteri for the first time, either one way or the other.

    Of course the smart activists are going to figure out in advance which of the 3 is most likely to pass, and if that is not what they like then they will obstruct the other two.

    That's how politics works on this lovely planet where we live.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2017
  2. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yup, all that stupid unnecessary turmoil caused by those misogynists who want to deny women their rights as humans and citizens....what a waste of time....

    ....and legal or illegal, abortions will be there forever as they have always been.........but if misogynists can make life hell for women or force them to die in pregnancy or force them to have their father's baby or their rapist's baby they will dance for joy.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe she was pleased that she did not have the abortion and her child lives.
     
  4. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Oh, so there was no point....I didn't think so....
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  5. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Again, that's to show how hypocritical pro abortion people are.


    I agree that if the woman's life is in danger then she can abort the child, as for the first part of your response, legality is irrelevant to what I asked. I'm asking from a moral and consistent standpoint why is it ok to kill an unborn child but not a newborn. As far as viability goes, he can survive outside the womb as early as five months. So are you saying that the unborn has the right to live at five months?





    I don't follow. I thought I was on topic.
     
    yiostheoy likes this.
  6. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Slaves weren't considered persons either. Your point?
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nor was the "potential person" (fetus at viability) that Roe v Wade provided protections for which was the "non-originalist" interpretation in Roe v Wade when "conservatives" cite Roe v Wade as being a "liberal" interpretation. Had a purely "originalist" interpretation been the basis for Roe v Wade then all of the abortion restrictions would have been struck down based upon "Textualism" and/or "Intentionalism" (originalism). The protections of the "potential person" were provided for based upon "Pragmatism" and/or "Natural Law Theory" (non-originalism).

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
    There are many that disparage the Roe v Wade decision when, in fact, it was the best possible interpretation of the Constitution as it balanced the textual interpretation, original intent, pragmatism and the natural rights in reaching an almost perfect decision from all four different interpretations.

    Even if we were to grant "personhood" by Constitutional amendment to the preborn, starting at conception, it wouldn't change the fact that the "right to life" for the preborn cannot exist prior to it's ability to live outside of the womb (at viability). This is easily proven because the fetus can be removed unharmed and intact so that no "act of aggression" has been committed against it and prior to viability it dies and after viability it lives, Nature itself establishes when the "right to life" begins and it begins at viability.
    . .
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  8. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "... the best possible interpretation ... ."

    Pure bull sh!t.

    You would be laughed out of law school if you said that.

    It is purely a case of legislation from the bench -- precisely what SCOTUS Justices are NOT empowered to do.

    But Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor don't mind doing it. And sometimes Kennedy too.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
  9. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Slaves were at least mentioned in the Constitution.

    Women and their uteri were certainly not.
     
  10. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  11. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Abortion is not a right, it is simply a procedure allowed by law. Much like Orgegons active euthanasia law.
     
  12. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The striking down of the abortion laws in Roe v Wade was not "litigation from the bench" because that was based upon a purely textual interpretation of the US Constitution. The US Constitution only protects the "rights of the person" and the woman is the only "person" when it comes to an abortion.

    "Personhood" was never in the history of civilization ever recognized prior to birth and when asked the attorney's representing the State of Texas (the defendant) admitted that fact to the US Supreme Court. .

    The "litigation from the bench" all addressed the decision's creation of "potential personhood" that was a previously undefined term related to interpretation of the Constitution and that's mentioned no where in the Constitution. Toss out every protection for the "preborn" and "potential person" and all of the "litigation from the bench" disappears because all that's left is the striking down of the abortion laws that adversely affected the Rights of the Person (i.e. the woman) that the Constitution protects.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The woman is jack apple sh!t in the Constitution and not mentioned even once until the amendment to give her/them voting rights.
     
  14. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The woman has the Constitutionally protected "Right of Self" and that includes any cells that are growing inside of her body. No one else has a right to the woman's body for any purpose. The Right of Self also includes the right of the person to terminate their own life assuming they're in sound mental state to make that decision.
     
    Derideo_Te and FoxHastings like this.
  15. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tell me what article, section, and paragraph contains "right of self" please.

    :D
     
  16. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This opinion is beyond being just misogynitically ignorant, it's not even true, The 19th Amendment doesn't mention women nor does the Constitution ever mention men or women..
     
    Derideo_Te and FoxHastings like this.
  17. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Every time the Constitution uses the word "person" it's a reference to the individual self.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not every state allows active euthanasia, therefore, your reasoning doesn't pass muster.
     
  19. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's a fundamental problem when discussing abortion with anti-abortionists. They don't typically understand the US Constitution, they don't understand Constitutional interpretation, they don't understand Constitutional rights and they don't understand natural rights.

    They have a belief that they want to impose on others but the belief's not supported by any logical or legal argument.

    It's like I've said here and in other threads. We can end abortion tomorrow by simply changing the medical procedure to a surgical deliver (i.e. "removal unharmed and intact") of the "baby in the womb" and it wouldn't change anything in 97.5% of the cases because the "baby in the womb" once delivered is going to die of natural causes and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. In some of the other 2.5% of the cases the woman will die or be seriously harmed from the medical procedure and the "baby in the womb" also has a high probability of dying anyway.

    The entire anti-abortion argument hinges upon less than 2% of all cases and yet they want to ban abortion in virtually all cases and they're not even a significant percentage of the American population (typically less than 20% of Americans).
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  20. Jimmy79

    Jimmy79 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2014
    Messages:
    9,366
    Likes Received:
    5,074
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At least you admit that only about 2.5% of abortions are done for medical reasons.

    And I have no issues at all with abortion. I just can't stand the stupidity of those for and against it. They are both so very anti fact that it's made the entire issue a farce.
     
  21. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And I'm failing to see how would the restrictions be struck down by the definitions you provided.
     
  22. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You messed up your quote. However when I said an unborn child can survive at five months, I wasn't giving an exact timeframe other than the month the unborn can survive.
     
  23. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    States do not have the right to deny individual rights protected by the 9th and 10th amendments of the federal constitution.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  24. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BZZZT Wrong!

    Only 39% have a problem with abortion and only 15% believe that it should be illegal.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/

    The MAJORITY of voters in this nation are WOMEN and they are OPPOSED to having their individual rights taken away by theists.
     
  25. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When it comes to the "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution it is worth noting that abortion was LEGAL when Constitution and the BoR were passed and ratified by the states. That means that the right to abortion was covered under the 9th Amendment.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.

Share This Page