Jump to content

US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You guys get away with these broad, claims too much. When one asks for specifics, more often than not, they turn out to be more just wishful thinking for some imagined thing to whine about based on some outlier comment.

Show us specifically what you're talking about or sell your new religion, Malthusian narrative at a another doorstep.

Then why would Justice Thomas take the time make it clear that the same rationale could be used to challenge other laws? 

He cited Griswold vs Connecticut. 

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/579/griswold-v-connecticut#:~:text=In Griswold v.,advise anyone about their use.

Quote

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut law that made it a crime to use birth control devices or to advise anyone about their use. Relying in part on penumbras from the First Amendment, this landmark decision elaborated the right to privacy that subsequently became the basis for the Court’s abortion decision in Roe v. Wade (1973).

In overturning Roe v Wade, you declare that the same pretence that made the right to an abortion a constitutional right, The Right to Privacy, is now null and void. So many other cases can now be thrown out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Conception? Appearance of a heartbeat? Development of the nervous system? Start of brain activity? Viability outside of womb? First breath? Pre-School? Noticeable disagreement of you or yours political opinion?

Another ruling: Planned Parenthood v Casey stated that Life begins once the life is viable outside the womb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas's musing seems to have something to due with something he calls "substantiative due process" and the idea that if the defining of them becomes a legal precedent in the abortion decision the Supreme Court may need to be consider how it affects previous decisions - one of which you mention. 

It's more something to consider from a legal standpoint Thomas was musing over in his 'opinion.'

It remains to be seen what if any affect this will have on future decisions on matters other than abortion. Other justices suggested no affect. 

If you're saying it means American women won't be able to get contraception anymore that's nonsense or as said before wishful thinking on what you'd like to claim to make a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

If you're saying it means American women won't be able to get contraception anymore that's nonsense or as said before wishful thinking on what you'd like to claim to make a point.

I never said that. 

But, as you highlighted, the point at which life begins is very subjective. 

So if there's no overarching federal precedent. Any Waffehouse State can most certainly look to overturn the effects of Griswold because the pretence that the precedent was built upon was just struck down. 

It's the type of silliness you get when your entire legal system is based on a document written in 18th Century. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Boges said:

Another ruling: Planned Parenthood v Casey stated that Life begins once the life is viable outside the womb. 

Actually wasn't it "fetal viability?" Yeah it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

Current science says that's 20 weeks as I understand it.

So are you saying that's specifically where you stand then? In agreement with the "Plurality Opinion" of a now defunct supreme court decision that baby killing becomes some sort of right after 20 weeks in the womb?

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Actually wasn't it "fetal viability?" Yeah it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

Current science says that's 20 weeks as I understand it.

So are you saying that's specifically where you stand then? In agreement with the "Plurality Opinion" of a now defunct supreme court decision that baby killing becomes some sort of right after 20 weeks in the womb?

I think it's fair. 

I would even entertain 12 weeks or when test can be done to determine if the fetus has any catastrophic genetic issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

I never said that. 

But, as you highlighted, the point at which life begins is very subjective. 

So if there's no overarching federal precedent. Any Waffehouse State can most certainly look to overturn the effects of Griswold because the pretence that the precedent was built upon was just struck down. 

It's the type of silliness you get when your entire legal system is based on a document written in 18th Century. 

So if I understand what you're saying then is you're not actually worried that American women are going to lose the ability to use contraception.

Not sure if it was you or not but somebody on the previous page was suggesting that was some sort of fact.

I said and continue to claim outright when you look into specifics that's not the case. He was using something some people talk about to suggest a now necessary boogey man, nightmare of a push for no contraception that was the ultimate consequence of the recent decision moving abortion law to the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

So if I understand what you're saying then is you're not actually worried that American women are going to lose the ability to use contraception.

Not sure if it was you or not but somebody on the previous page was suggesting that was some sort of fact.

I said and continue to claim outright when you look into specifics that's not the case. He was using something some people talk about to suggest a now necessary boogey man, nightmare of a push for no contraception that was the ultimate consequence of the recent decision moving abortion law to the states.

What about Gay Marriage? that's a more recent/controversial precedent that uses the same justification. 

You're telling me that, now the Right to Privacy argument has been made null and void, that lawyers aren't going to try to push it to the next logical conclusion. 

And there are varying levels of contraception. There are Condoms or the Pill. But there's also Plan B and IUDs. 

If someone believed that life begins at conception, then killing a fertilized embryo is murder. Why else is Stem Cell research so controversial in some places. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

I think it's fair. 

I would even entertain 12 weeks or when test can be done to determine if the fetus has any catastrophic genetic issues. 

We don't seem that far apart then, although I'm still open to being persuaded life begins at conception. 

Some 'life begins at conception' arguments are hard to deconstruct.

And if there's life where does this right come from to end it.

For now though I'm for saving whatever is a baby at as close to conception as possible because that seems like something that can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

For now though I'm for saving whatever is a baby at as close to conception as possible because that seems like something that can be done.

Well in the Texas law, 6-weeks seems too short to allow for the mother to have due diligence. Which was a problem. 

And then access is also an issue. If you are unable to get an abortion for weeks because access is so restricted, then it allows the fetus more time to develop. 

These are all personal decision. What upsets so many is they're moral judgements made by someone else. 

The old Rape an Incest thing comes back up. What about pregnancies where contraception fail? 

This is a completely grey issue but both sizes are only happy if it's black or white. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Boges said:

What about Gay Marriage? that's a more recent/controversial precedent that uses the same justification. 

What about it? All I'm saying is the Clarence Thomas concerns on substantiative due process don't necessitate the death of contraception or anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

What about it? All I'm saying is the Clarence Thomas concerns on substantiative due process don't necessitate the death of contraception or anything else. 

It leaves the opening for it though. 

Again, back to my point that using the constitution as a sacrosanct document is silly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Boges said:

These are all personal decision. What upsets so many is they're moral judgements made by someone else. 

What are the arguments for abortion up to birth based on then.

Not morality, you say? You seem to be saying, no. What then? Science? No. Lila rose just explained to you why that's not the case in the video above.

Not morality. Not science? Politics then?

I don't know. I prefer the first two if I have to choose, myself.

Quote

The old Rape an Incest thing comes back up. What about pregnancies where contraception fail? 

These are decisions that will be decided by the states according to the Supreme Court decision. Seems like the better option to me. Easier to vote them down democratically if the state population doesn't agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Boges said:

It leaves the opening for it though. 

Again, back to my point that using the constitution as a sacrosanct document is silly. 

Federally you mean...in the supreme court where the majority opinion is that this decision only applies to this case and nothing not related to abortion. 

And all that was decided was the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Meaning the States.

You have something better than the constitution to decide such matters do you?

Go ahead then, Your Honor. Give us the final non-constitutional decision on Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health.

Edited by Infidel Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boges said:

So you're fine with abortion for Rape and Incest? OR failed Contraception? 

Some of these states will look to ban Contraception that allow fertilization but prevent pregnancy. 

contraception will not be banned

and no I am not in favor of abortion due to failed contraception

not that comfortable with incest or rape exemptions, but I would be willing compromise regardless

the only abortions I'm truly fine with are to protect the life or long term health of the mother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Federally you mean...in the supreme court where the majority opinion is that this decision only applies to this case and nothing not related to abortion. 

And all that was decided was the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Meaning the States.

You have something better than the constitution to decide such matters do you?

Go ahead then, Your Honor. Give us the final non-constitutional decision on Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health.

OK, I wouldn't allow states to ban abortion. Which many are doing. It's a personal medical decision. 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

contraception will not be banned

and no I am not in favor of abortion due to failed contraception

not that comfortable with incest or rape exemptions, but I would be willing compromise regardless

the only abortions I'm truly fine with are to protect the life or long term health of the mother

Many disagree with that. 

It's funny, it's almost like personal choice is the best option here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boges said:

Many disagree with that. 

It's funny, it's almost like personal choice is the best option here. 

I am aware that many disagree with that

and I personally think the government will do a shitty job of regulating abortion in some cases

but the right to do that belongs to the states, regardless of my personal opinion

it's their call, not mine, and not the federal governments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

I am aware that many disagree with that

and I personally think the government will do a shitty job of regulating abortion in some cases

but the right to do that belongs to the states, regardless of my personal opinion

it's their call, not mine, and not the federal governments

You're also not American. We're just Canadians having theoretical debate. 

We live in a country where it's a personal decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

indeed

the second amendment is one of the most important rights

and certainly more important than infringing on the tenth amendment to tell states how to regulate abortions

The second amendment doesn't specify concealment. 

This is how pointy headed we can get with this. Nor did it conceive of a firearm that could be concealed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...