Abortion is in the constitution.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Dec 2, 2021.

  1. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    59,789
    Likes Received:
    38,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem for those that want to overturn the MS statute is that they could not cite any Federal Legislation or Constitutional provision that supported overturning the MS statute. To me they went to precedent because they had nothing else supporting their demand that the state statute be overturned.

    If the Court can find a path that upholds the MS Statute, Roe and Casey, I'm confident they will. One problem for the Consequentialists sudden devotion to precedence is that both Sotomayor and Breyer "indicated a willingness to overturn the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. After that decision, both continued to dissent and arguing that “the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.” Indeed, they may reaffirm that position this term."

    Some Thoughts from Jonathon Turley:

    "Kavanaugh and other justices balked at claims that Roe is somehow untouchable due to the passage of 50 years. The 1896 ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, roughly 58 years after it was written; the court ruled that its Plessy decision was egregiously wrong — one in a long list of reversals celebrated today. This includes Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned prior precedent allowing the criminalization of homosexual relations."

    "In Brown, the court had extensive discussion of the constitutional foundation for the “separate but equal” doctrine; in the oral argument on Dobbs, there was comparably little substantive defense of the analysis in Roe or its successor case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Indeed, the thrust of much of the pro-choice argument was that, even if Roe was incorrectly decided, it takes more than being wrong to overturn such an “established” precedent."

    "When it was released, Roe was widely ridiculed as being extraconstitutional and excessive. That includes some who are now calling to pack of the Court criticized Roe. For example, Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe objected that “behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”"

    "Even Justice Ginsburg criticized it, declaring: “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

    "When justices pushed pro-choice advocates to defend the key “viability” standard, counsel defended it as a “principled” or “workable” line but did not say how it was constitutionally compelled. That seems odd, since this case is about whether Mississippi can impose a 15-week limit. (The United States is one of only seven among the world’s 198 countries that allow abortions after 20 weeks.)"

    "the mere fact that a case is precedent is no substitute for constitutional principle."

    "Roe should stand or fall on constitutional merits — not on feigned outrage over changing constitutional precedent."

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/court-hot-tin-roof-airing-out-stench-oral-argument-over-abortion
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  2. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,088
    Likes Received:
    1,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please expand on that? It's not much of a rebuttal.
     
  3. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,088
    Likes Received:
    1,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Already did, which is why we told you such. Now can you come up with the portion of the Act, supported by the courts, that says otherwise?
     
  4. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,088
    Likes Received:
    1,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With all the above, can you provide an example of where SCOTUS has declared something that it previously declared unconstitutional, constitutional again? I am aware of many times where something previously declared constitutional was later declared unconstitutional, but not the other way around.
     
  5. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,147
    Likes Received:
    2,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A fetus doesn't exist without its host but the host exists without the fetus. The host is already born but the fetus, which is fully a part (including its placenta and all other body parts) of the host, is not (until it is). The rights of the born host (ALL of them) are protected by the Constitution.
     
  6. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    54,864
    Likes Received:
    20,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    FoxHastings said:
    NO ONE EVER SAID A FETUS WASN'T ALIVE UNTIL BIRTH.....NO ONE....

    You couldn't "admit " hat NO ONE SAID the fetus was dead...yet YOU claimed they did!!!!


    NO ONE EVER SAID A FETUS WASN'T ALIVE UNTIL BIRTH.....NO ONE....WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED.

    You couldn't "admit " hat NO ONE SAID the fetus was dead...yet YOU claimed they did!!!!



    LOL, riight on schedule ...none of your arguments work so it's the Anti-Choicer's winding down PREDICTABLE statements:

    """ I like Democrat "precious lives" being killed, I don't mind any "precious life" being killed as long as it doesn't cost me any money since money is the most important thing"
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  7. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The actions of the host is the reason for the human baby fetus in the first place. The host should be held accountable for their actions. "rights of the born host" and all.
     
  8. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    9,878
    Likes Received:
    3,558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why?
     
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    54,864
    Likes Received:
    20,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Getting pregnant is not a crime.


    Yup, the born host has rights, like the right to NOT have to use their body to sustain the life of another.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,147
    Likes Received:
    2,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Non sequitur. Nothing above changes what I posted. Her rights remain protected at all times regardless of her actions or inactions.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2021
  11. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,088
    Likes Received:
    1,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't call it non sequitur. After all we do hold the father accountable for his actions. And indeed the mother if the offspring is born. So it does follow. It's a logic that fails to take other factors into account, but the fallacy would not be non sequitur.
     
  12. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Killing your "mistake" isn't either but should be... the right to kill a human being baby fetus is not in the constitution.
     
  13. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    9,878
    Likes Received:
    3,558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Abortion will only stop with the appropriate tech.
     
    Maquiscat likes this.
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,147
    Likes Received:
    2,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it's still a non sequitur. No rights are unprotected based on her actions or inactions. Nothing changes about her constitutionally protected rights, just in the minds of those who want her rights to be abrogated.
     
  15. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    54,864
    Likes Received:
    20,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    Getting pregnant is not a crime.



    Yup, the born host has rights, like the right to NOT have to use their body to sustain the life of another.


    You couldn't refute my post :)
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,147
    Likes Received:
    2,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither is the right to defecate. And?
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  17. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The argument is and always will be the same.
    One side for a woman’s right of her body
    The other side to stop the killing another human being.

    Nothing will ever change either mind in an argument.
     
    Bluesguy likes this.
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    54,864
    Likes Received:
    20,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :) That doesn't matter...only the law matters :)
     
  19. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,088
    Likes Received:
    1,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe depending on how abortion is actually defined. If "the ending of a pregnancy prematurely" with no indication of the final status of the offspring, then abortion will remain even if the offspring lives. And I bring the point because a ZEF can die without a natural abortion (commonly called miscarriage) occuring, thus requiring a medical abortion to be performed. So it really is a question of whether abortion has any indication of the status of the ZEF before and after it occurs.
     
  20. popscott

    popscott Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2021
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    3,064
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Killing a human being is not in the constitution.
     
  21. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    54,864
    Likes Received:
    20,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what?




    See post 290...the one you couldn't address :)
     
  22. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42,527
    Likes Received:
    21,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't decry my inherent natural rights, and you can pretend they're privileges but they're not. It's a mistake Leftists and authoritarians of all stripes make.

    No, if my neighbor infringes on my rights I stand up to them and defend myself.

    And your point is erroneous.

    As I pointed out earlier, people don't need governments to assert and preserve their rights - they can and have done it on their own, and often they have fought governments to assert and preserve them. We institute governments and laws to defend our inherent rights so that we don't have to exist, as John Locke accurately put it in the second of his Two Treatises of Government, in a state of war.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,147
    Likes Received:
    2,146
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither is killing a living cancerous tumor. It's apparent you don't understand the purpose of the Constitution.

    Very basically the Constitution defines the powers of the federal government and limits those powers in order to protect the individual rights of The People (from government). The first 8 Amendments lists specific protected rights and the 9th Amendment protects ALL other unspecified (unenumerated) rights. The 10th Amendment limits the powers of the federal government to those specified in the Constitution and grants ALL other unspecified powers to The People or the states. It is NOT a document that itemizes every single thing in the Universe.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  24. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    37,598
    Likes Received:
    14,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And abortion does not involve killing a human being.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  25. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    42,527
    Likes Received:
    21,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course it does.

    Do you think abortion involves killing a vegetable or a mineral? :lol:
     

Share This Page