Why do abortion rights people whine about a group of white men overturning Roe v. Wade?

Then why do you think that "to some extent", OLD WHITE men shouldn't be making those decisions?

 

Mandatory vaginal penetration?

 

Just men.

 

Why?

 

Of course, rational compromise is almost impossible when people positions are absolutes.

 

Post 86

 

So what? The same can be said about most laws. You and I don't understand the pains a pedophile goes through but we still make statutory rape laws a thing. We don't understand the compulsion felt by a pyromaniac, but we still make laws against arson.

Just because we don't understand the experience a person is going through doesnt mean we shouldnt protect others from them harming them. And those who see the unborn as people are basically seeking to stop murder by stopping abortion, or something along those lines.

 

Did you ever notice you make assertions, and are incapable of backing them up with substantive argument?

 

And, for some reason they haven't been able to explain, the same people that complain about Public Aid, crime stats and overcrowded prisons are the same people that think a woman will miraculously give a damn about a kid she didn't want to carry to term. It makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

 

Something you did not understand about the term ?

 

Why the race and we'd matter on the fundamental question of right to life, old white men were born once and they have lives.

 

Women don't understand what it's like to subjected to conscription and being told to go to war else jail so should their opinions about going to war be banned?

 

Read the OP.

 

No, I've never noticed that, nor do I care. I'm expressing my opinion, this is a political opinion forum, you know.

But here is Alito's reasoning in the draft in the Dobbs V Jackson case, which I feel is the correct opinion:

https://theconversation.com/abortio...-court-adopts-the-leaked-alito-opinion-182379
Abortion right guaranteed by Roe will be replaced by state power if the Supreme Court adopts the leaked Alito opinion

"The court that decided Roe, Alito writes, “usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves to the people.” Therefore, “it is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

"So Alito puts the decision about when a fetus becomes a person clearly in the hands of the elected representatives of each state: “In some states, voters may believe that the abortion right should be even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized. Voters in other states may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’”​

 

The opinion is based in religion, and that is expressly forbidden.

 

I've read through this thread, and two very clear questions come to mind, one of which I have my own answer for, but would be interested in what the participants of this thread think.

1. Why does moving the subject of abortion from Federal to State purview become 'banning abortion'?

2. If Abortion was so important to certain groups, why was this not addressed, or even attempted to be addressed, when the Democrats had majority control of Congress?

 

The statement that was posted actually removes the possibility of religious opinions in the Federal government, and moves it to the State, to create their own law in regards to abortion. The Opinion in and of itself, does not address the subject by involving religion.

If a State enacts a law that addresses abortion based on a religious aspect, THEN there would be a basis to object.

 

He is trying to hide it.

But he can't. His argument only works if he is also judging that abortion is wrong.

"And yet the main ground that the draft offers for distinguishing abortion from the various other unenumerated rights the Court has recognized under the rubric of privacy and substantive due process is that abortion "destroys . . . the life of an 'unborn human being.'" It's true that Justice Alito puts quotation marks around "unborn human being," as if to signal that he is not endorsing the view that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is a full human being with the same rights and interests as a 30-year-old woman. But that's a distraction. If Justice Alito means the draft to distinguish abortion from all other unenumerated privacy rights on this ground, then it must be that he and any Justices who end up signing onto the draft actually think that abortion destroys the life of an unborn human being. Otherwise, this is not a meaningful distinction."

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2022/05/deeply-rooted-in-mystery-and-suspicion.html#more

 

He specifically directs the statement to (I'm paraphrasing at the moment) 'some States may.....

In addition, the 'privacy' aspect was effectively removed with an Obama era mandate of medical records becoming electronic. Any medical personnel can have access to medical records, which would include the 'privacy' of an abortion, and the doctors notes leading up to and including the termination.

 

No, it's based on the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment.

 

Which doesn't touch what I said in any way..

That's ridiculous.

You're thrashing around blindly.

 

It very clearly addresses exactly what you posted, but you choose to dodge, that's your choice.

 

No, they aren't supposed to take sides, and Alito obviously has, and for religious reasons.

What's more you didn't rebut, you simply repeated the lame dodge the radicals are trying to hide behind..

 

Because several states have laws that will do basically that.

 

Did you mean to write Republicans? The Democrats had abortion as they wanted it until this decision comes out. It is a good question though why don't Republicans ban abortion when they are in power. I think it is a vote-getting issue they would rather not lose by making it happen.