Republican's Latest Monumental Faux Pas

It's held up for 50 years in numerous challenges. You call that "shaky"? Dude, really?
Abortion has been legal in this country for about 200 of it's 240+ year history.

 

Yes, the original decision was on very shaky constitutional grounds.

 

The point of your post?

 

Federal government. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says the Federal government has the power to regulate abortion.

It's a states rights issue.

 

The Constitution DOES give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to decide national issues when it comes to individual rights vs State's rights. And the Supreme Court ruled that the interests of the individual American out-weigh the interests of the state in Roe v. Wade. That is well within the scope of the Constitution. Individual rights are paramount over the interests of the state.

Surprised a libertarian wouldn't agree with that.

 

Most Americans don't even know ROE v. WADE and why it is such bad law thanks to Public Education and Leftists in the media not sharing the truth.

 

Where did I say that they did?

 

It ceases to be a zygote well before the average abortion is performed.

 

And most judges, left or right leaning, agree that the affirmation of individual rights over state interest (anti-abortion laws) supported by the decision in Roe v. Wade is solid Constitutional law. Sorry, dude. You lose again.

 

So you believe abortions were as common place before Roe as after?

 

actually you haven't a clue.

 

So when does a woman cease being an individual and become a State owned embryo incubator?

 

More or less. And so did the Supreme Court judges who ruled on the case. Everyone knew women of means just took "vacations" and in the years just before the ruling, Operation Jane had kicked into full gear and women were paying to bus other women across the border. Abortions were legal in four states. And there are thousands of stories about the women who had illegal abortions performed.

And that was at a time when the entire country was more conservative. Anti-abortion laws would be about as effective as anti-pot laws. There are at least 30 states that would not change their more liberal abortion laws.

 

So the people who think abortion is morally wrong take a backseat to the people who think it is morally correct to allow a woman to end the life inside her.

 

Perhaps when the baby has a heartbeat, can feel pain, and is viable outside the womb.

People who have abortions after that point and use it as a routine form of birth control are disgusting human beings.

 

You are talking completely out of the side of your neck. First off, Roe v. Wade put the Federal Government over the states. Secondly, tons and tons and tons of big time Leftists / Liberal judges and scholars agree the decision was crap.

“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.” — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun

“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. … Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” — Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor, former U.S. Solicitor General

“t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor

“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” — Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor

“Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor

[O]verturning [Roe] would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary. … Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.” — Jeffrey Rosen, legal commentator, George Washington University law professor

“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” — William Saletan, Slate columnist, writing in Legal Affairs

“In the years since the decision an enormous body of academic literature has tried to put the right to an abortion on firmer legal ground. But thousands of pages of scholarship notwithstanding, the right to abortion remains constitutionally shaky. … [Roe] is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” — Benjamin Wittes, Brookings Institution fellow

“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” — Michael Kinsley, columnist, writing in the Washington Post.



YOU are simply spouting off mindless Left wing talking points with no regards to reality. I just provided you a lot of prestigious Lefties that think you are full of crap on the matter. You lied. You are caught. Game Over.

 

So what - then why does these religious right political clowns keep introducing legislation claiming the zygote is a human.

 

The science denier party doesn't even understand that overturning Roe vs Wade doesn't make abortion illegal. It just goes back to each state to decide.

 

I like your use of evasive and obfuscative - and not technically correct terminology. These are classic anti abort tactics. The life of "what" pray tell.

Regardless .. the answer to your question is yes. Perhaps you hate the founding principles and the principles of Republicanism - and you are welcome to your opinion - but, in a Republic the Gov't is not supposed to be allowed to make law messing with individual liberty without overwhelming majority consent as this would be "Tyranny of the Majority".

The thing about principles such as respect for liberty is that respect for liberty is not respect "Only for Liberties you agree with" - everyone believes in that. Respect for liberty is respect for liberty in situations you disagree with. If you have no respect for the liberty of others to do things that you personally might disagree with and not do - then you have no respect for essential liberty .. FULL STOP. Salman Rushdie.

 

This one really hates zygotes. Sounds like Zygotophobia. Might need sensitivity training.

 

You need to rethink this.

 

We want liberty for zygotes.

 

I do not hate zygotes LOL - I just do not think the rights of a single human cell Trump the rights of the woman. I realize that you hate the founding principles and principles of Republicanism - and you are welcome to your opinion. Just because I do not share your opinion does not mean I hate zygotes

 

Well there's a very slight chance they decide to give unborn children civil rights, but not likely.

 

LOL I know. The problem is that you can not make a coherent argument that justifies giving a single human cell the same rights as woman/human.