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

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

  1. Beatrice4

    Beatrice4 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Every human being alive right now went through the process of growing inside a womb until being delivered.
     
  2. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    2,871
    Trophy Points:
    113


    ....so?......and? .........
     
  3. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I bypassed that part and started as a teenager! Before the obvious police show up, perhaps you can tell us

    1. If you would support a law against abortion.
    2. What would we do with the millions of unwanted children. (assuming the law was followed)
     
  4. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    No. Again. Context is key when studying scripture, history too.
     
  5. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,414
    Likes Received:
    11,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for conceding that morality pertains to context and therefore in today's society abortion is neither amoral nor immoral.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  6. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,632
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US Constitution only protects the Rights of the Person and Personhood has always been established at birth.

    Based upon "originalism" there was only one "person" that had Constitutional Rights and that's the woman. The laws restricting and/or prohibiting an abortion were an infringement upon the Rights of the Person and it couldn't be argued that the restrictions or prohibition was for the protection of another person. Under strict scrutiny there was no government interest because the laws did not protect anyone's rights but did infringe upon the woman's rights.

    The striking down of all abortion laws in Roe v Wade was based upon "originalism" (a textual interpretation of the Constitution). If that was all that Roe v Wade had done there would be no basis for disputing the decision.

    Perhaps the best way to understand is to read the dissent by Rehnquist. In the dissent he argues against the different limitations during the pregnancy, he argues against application of a "right to privacy" in the decision, he comments on prior precedent, and he argues semantics but the one thing Rehnquist doesn't argue is that the woman is the only "person" with Constitutionally protected rights.

    Because the woman was the only person, and because the Constitution only protects the rights of the person, the application of the most stringent of all criteria, strict scrutiny, was applied to the case. The criteria for strict scrutiny, because a person's rights are being infringed upon, changes the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defense.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny+Test

    The defense (Texas) had to establish that the abortion laws were necessary but it couldn't do that because the abortion laws weren't about protecting anyone else's rights. Only the woman was a person and only the woman had rights to be protected by the State of Texas.

    So first the State of Texas had to prove it was protecting "someone's rights" but it couldn't and even if it could establish that then it had to prove that the legislation was narrowly tailored to just protect those rights without undue infringement upon anyone else's rights.

    Any challenge to Roe v Wade will never be able to overcome the fact that the woman is the only person and that the state would have to prove that it was protecting another "person's" rights in creating an abortion law and that's impossible to do.

    Even if we had a Constitutional Amendment granting "personhood" to the preborn it wouldn't change the Roe v Wade decision because prior to viability (about the 25th week when there's a 50:50 chance of survival) it can't be argued that an abortion results in the death of the fetus because the fetus would die of natural causes outside of the womb.
     
    FoxHastings and Derideo_Te like this.
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,632
    Likes Received:
    763
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US Constitution doesn't deal with subjective morality. It only deals with the Rights of the Person and prior to birth the "person" does not exist and the "preborn" have no Constitutionally protected rights.
     
    FoxHastings and Derideo_Te like this.
  8. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't remember which thread it was, but you were going to tell us what you do to help the cause.
     
  9. Diana7

    Diana7 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    “I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

    Ronald Reagan
     
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    2,871
    Trophy Points:
    113


    So? Do you have anything to say yourself that makes sense since Reagan's comment didn't make any....?


    I suggest an education, go back and read a few posts and all of Shiva-TD's posts on the Constitution and law.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  11. Diana7

    Diana7 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    And I suggest you learn to distinguish between moral law and Constitutional law, least you continue making yourself look silly.

    As for Reagan's quote, it made perfect sense, you simply lack the moral compass to comprehend it. I'll try to dumb it down for you in two easy lil' steps:
    1. Those most affected by abortion -- the aborted -- are given no say in the matter.
    2. Those who are for abortion have already been afforded the right to life. How very selfish of them.
    In what other area of debate can we say those two things are true?

    I eagerly await your terrible response.
     
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    2,871
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Your morals do NOT rule everyone else...too bad :)



    Well, duh, yaaaa....since anyone who hasn't been born has no opinion...:roll:...his Alztheimer's was acting up....he was just saluting Captain Obvious...


    .

    :) ...and you are who to pass judgements on other's morals???? Your compass doesn't rule the earth.




    No. 1 is true......see, if you haven't been born you have no say in anything...did you want fetuses to tap out messages in Morse code?

    No. 2...NO one is afforded the right to life. One can't be selfish to something that never existed. Now do tell me how you have gone through life totally UNselfishly.....hint: no human ever has.

    And Reagan's statement sure didn't need dumbing down, it was as dumb as possible.






    Well, it will be terrible to you since I use facts and not the illogical mumblings of an old man with dementia....

    I take it you haven't bothered to read one word about abortion.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    347
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I absolutely love when people bring morality into the discussion. Why does the person standing on the moral soapbox always seem to point their righteous finger at others while telling them to do that they, themselves, are not willing to?

    There are thousands of unwanted children that will never see the inside of a loving home. How many have you adopted?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    2,871
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Guess you're no longer eager ....:)
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,414
    Likes Received:
    11,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What did St Reagan say about the millions of unwanted children who grew up to become drug addicts and criminals?
     
    Doofenshmirtz and FoxHastings like this.
  16. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    2,871
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I have a funny feeling that poster found out life, and the abortion issue, isn't as simple as a trite old saying by a trite old man......
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,414
    Likes Received:
    11,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assuming that St Reagan ever uttered that trite tripe in the first place.

    One thing is predictable and that is anti-abortionists regurgitate the same debunked nonsense over and over again.
     
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    2,871
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Reagan may have said it ( he WAS an actor so he liked drama ) but when an Anti-Choicer brings it up they never follow through and show what Reagan DID about abortion....RvW is still here :)



    I think there must be a rule book for Anti-Choicers with a list of Idiotic, Illogical, Really Old Stupid Things to Repeat Until You Change Someone's Mind.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  19. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,414
    Likes Received:
    11,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be the debunked LifeShiteSpews website.

    If you search the Brainy Quote website for "Abortion Reagan" only 4 quotes show up and 2 are from Nancy and NONE are from St Reagan himself.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    27,353
    Likes Received:
    2,871
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Oh, ya, Nancy, the President behind the President ....;)
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.

Share This Page