Reply to Roe v Wade struck down

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Roe v Wade struck down"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous] This is not something I thought I would ever actually see.

Kudos to the SCOTUS on this. Always should have been up to the states.[/quote]

But why exactly? I'm just looking for the rationale why it should be a state decision and not a federal one. I can't have children anymore so just curious for the next generation.[/quote]

There is no Constitutional right to an abortion. The Constitution enshrines a very small number of fundamental enumerated and unenumerated rights. It doesn’t protect everything that’s good.

In the midst of a massive social and political fight over abortion, Roe and Casey created an obvious fiction: a Constitutional right to “privacy” that included a right to abortion. This removed the issue from the usual political process, and did irreparable damage to the Court and the country. Suddenly the Court was a 100% political institution.

Today’s decision delivers the issue back to the political process, where it always should have been. I am basically pro choice. I also recognize that someone isn’t crazy, or a bigot or a woman hater, if they really feel like aborting a fetus (particularly one that is viable, can feel pain, etc.) is murder or something close to it. It’s a complicated issue. There is going to have to be a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy. And the debate will continue, people will make arguments, mobilize votes. That’s what’s supposed to happen on hotly contested policy questions in a democracy. [/quote]

So basically the constitution didn't and still doesn't consider having an abortion ending a life? The constitution enshrines life as far as I know. Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]

No idea what your post is even trying to articulate. But the Constitution is different from the Declaration of Independence.

This kind of demonstrates the point though. This illiterate PP is free to have an opinion about abortion rights. But trying to support that opinion in the context of Constitutional law is a joke. You people have no clue what you’re talking about. [/quote]

True I don't know but I started my request asking why this was a state's rights verses federal decision so I pretty much said I was ignorant from the beginning and never gave an opinion. I'm not a supreme court judge nor do I really have an opinion on abortion either way. I think more children and women should be cared for, but I don't know the law what should be allowed. Pro lifers seem to think it's murder so they would want a federal ruling I'd think that it was taking away a life and not a state's rights. I don't really understand why it was federal for roe-v wade and now why states have the right to decide. I don't really understand the new or old law on this. I'm  mainly curious why it was determined that this be a state decision rather than a federal one.[/quote]

Roe held that there was a constitutional right to an abortion. Applied to the whole country/federal.

This SCOTUS is now saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion. This means that the states can legislate any way they want. So it’s now a state by state issue. [/quote]

Thank you. And originally it was a constitutional right because?[/quote]

Because all people are guaranteed liberty under the constitution, which can only be abridged by the state given compelling interests.  The states now need no reason to infringe upon your rights.  Great job conservatives.[/quote]

The right to reproduce is the most basic right of all, next to the right to live.  Everything else is meaningless. Abortion is baked into the human experience. It’s not surprising to me the Founders took it for granted. In fact, until very recently this obsession with fetuses was a fringe Catholic belief only. [/quote]

And not even really a Catholic belief.  When my grandmother had a miscarriage in 1931, did anyone act like it was a death of a child?  No.  When my mom had one in 1966, did anyone?  No.  It's only very recently that Catholics have gone in for those "angel in heaven" and prayer services for miscarried fetuses.  All that stuff came *after* the massive anti-abortion movement, which was thoroughly astrotufed by Republicans who needed a rallying cry post-Nixon to rebuild the party.  [/quote]

^^^This. It's all manufactured.

Way more embryos are miscarried than ever get gestated and born. If embryos and fetuses were sacred human life created by a supreme being, then that supreme being sure is a sick monster. And don't come back with the  "god has a plan" nonsense. It makes absolutely no sense to create billions of embryos and fetuses, say they have souls and call them sacred life, and then have them wash down the toilet from natural circumstances, often before a woman even knows there was a conception. You anti-abortionists have no rejoinder to this philosophical conundrum, which is why you always conveniently ignore it.[/quote]

I have an issue with abortion not from a philosophical perspective but because the fetus can feel pain during the procedure.

[/quote]
No, it can’t. Where do you get this crap from? [/quote]

Yes, it can.  I’m a neuroscientist.  The first system to develop is the nervous system.  Before the heart.  It feels the pain.
[/quote]

You are not a neuroscientist. If you were, you would be smarter! A woman either takes a pill (no pain for the embryo), or is under enough anasthesia to put her and a tiny ball to sleep. Neither the woman, nor the embryo/fetus feels a thing. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics