U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Deleted member 559230]

your enforcing people to not be able to have abortions, your morals are that the parents MUST have a child if pregnant, and removing the option to have a safe abortion. You are enforcing your morals on someone else

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Do you see me sitting on the Supreme Court? I'm simply stating that I agree that abortion is wrong regardless of the excuse. If for some reason your logic tells you that's me somehow enforcing laws then you lack insight.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Do you see me sitting on the Supreme Court? I'm simply stating that I agree that abortion is wrong regardless of the excuse. If for some reason your logic tells you that's me somehow enforcing laws then you lack insight.

Here let me apply this to marijuana then. I personally have some childhood trauma relating to it, I personally hate it. Replace marijuana with abortions.
You: I don't like marijuana, so I'm going to support the supreme court in banning it
Me: I don't like marijuana, but I'm willing to tolerate others decision on it.

Does that paint the picture more clearly? Your willing to strip the mere option because you dislike it. And your willing to enforce that belief through supporting this action. While I (if it was marijuana) would dislike it, but tolerate others decision for using it.

you are deciding to enforce.

 

[The Catboy]

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. Do you see me sitting on the Supreme Court? I'm simply stating that I agree that abortion is wrong regardless of the excuse. If for some reason your logic tells you that's me somehow enforcing laws then you lack insight.

Outside of wanting to force people to carry a pregnancy.

 

[Foxi4]

yeah as many as 23 states have laws banning abortions. meanwhile about 70% of the public supports keeping roe v wade.

70% of the public supports women having the option to abort their pregnancies if they so choose - that doesn’t make the decision itself any less stupid. The ruling is bad - the U.S. Constitution does not contain the right to privacy. The court ruled it as implied (on the basis of the right to due process, of all things), and based on that implied right, it also ruled that a woman can abort a pregnancy because it’s her private matter. Going by that logic, you can do just about anything so long as you do it in the privacy of your home and nobody finds out. It’s a stupid interpretation that only exists to enshrine abortion because the court believed it should be enshrined - the legal basis is piss poor. Anyone who actually believes this is what the authors of the Constitution meant when writing it has a screw loose. It’s judicial activism, which is *not* what the Supreme Court is for. The whole thing should be revamped to make a single lick of sense. There are established mechanism for creating legislation - the SCOTUS shouldn’t be used as a shortcut or substitute.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

All I can do is laugh at the fact that most who support this decision are the same ones that have been screaming "MY BODY! MY CHOICE!" and "MEDICAL FREEDOM!!!" for the last couple years.

All I can do is laugh at the fact that most of who supported forcing people to take vaccines for the last couple of years are now claiming "MY BODY! MY CHOICE" and "MEDICAL FREEDOM!!!".

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Haha fucking stupid.

So you think it's the job of other people to feed and cloth children if the parents decide to not feed and cloth them? You're supporting dead beat pieces of trash. You're part of the reason the kids aren't being fed or clothed. Shame on you.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

70% of the public supports women having the option to abort their pregnancies if they so choose - that doesn’t make the decision itself any less stupid. The ruling is bad - the U.S. Constitution does not contain the right to privacy. The court ruled it as implied (on the basis of the right to due process, of all things), and based on that implied right, it also ruled that a woman can abort a pregnancy because it’s her private matter. Going by that logic, you can do just about anything so long as you do it in the privacy of your home and nobody finds out. It’s a stupid interpretation that only exists to enshrine abortion because the court believed it should be enshrined - the legal basis is piss poor. It’s judicial activism, which is *not* what the Supreme Court is for. The whole thing should be revamped to make a single lick of sense. Anyone who actually believes that’s what the authors of the Constitution meant when writing it has a screw loose.

false historical precedent within courts since 1923 has read the 14th amendment, specifically section1, even more specifically liberty clause to apply directly here, that grants a fairly broad right to privacy.

 

[Xzi]

Tyranny of the minority, only 14% of Americans are staunchly "pro-life." The real reason behind this also has nothing to do with the bible, as we millennials aren't popping out enough crotch goblins to fill the lithium mines. Next they'll go after birth control and same-sex marriage. We're in the theocratic fascist endgame now.

 

[Foxi4]

false historical precedent within courts since 1923 has read the 14th amendment, specifically section1, even more specifically liberty clause to apply directly here, that grants a fairly broad right to privacy.

The right to privacy is not found anywhere in the Constitution. It is implied only, and alluded to in previous rulings. It is *not* an enumerated right and does not appear anywhere in the text.

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Can’t wait for you to tell me that you know law better than law professors. If you think it is an enumerated right, you will have no trouble at all quoting the part of the Constitution where it is enumerated. If you can’t, it means that I was correct and the right is implied, and subject to interpretation, which is precisely what I said in the very beginning.

 

[JuanMena]

So you think it's the job of other people to feed and cloth children if the parents decide to not feed and cloth them? You're supporting dead beat pieces of trash. You're part of the reason the kids aren't being fed or clothed. Shame on you.

Wow, fucking holy mother of shit... you totally didn't understood my first comment.

Me: Women amd only women needs the right to choose
If you're pro life, go take care of the lives of children you defend so much.

Jonhathon:

So you think it's the job of other people to feed and cloth children if the parents decide to not feed and cloth them? You're supporting dead beat pieces of trash. You're part of the reason the kids aren't being fed or clothed. Shame on you

 

[Deleted member 586536]

The right to privacy is not found anywhere in the constitution. It is implied only, and alluded to in previous rulings. It is *not* an enumerated right and does not appear anywhere in the text.

It is not implied only, supreme court ruled over it.
We have executive branch, and then we have legislative, and then judicial.
The United States doesn't solo operate on the constitution or just legislative branch or what is "enumerated" within the constitution. Time and time again, that "reading in further" has been supported within the supreme court for ages either within laws themselves or the constitution. Otherwise the civil rights act would not apply to trans people, that required reading in. and if your going to take issue with "it's not enumerated" then go take issue with that ruling too.

 

[Foxi4]

It is not implied only, supreme court ruled over it. We have executive branch, and then we have legislative, and then judicial.
The United States doesn't solo operate on the constitution or just legislative branch or what is "enumerated" within the constitution. Time and time again, that "reading in further" has been supported within the Supreme Court for ages either within laws themselves or the constitution. Otherwise the civil rights act would not apply to trans people, that required reading in.

See above, take the L. It’s not enumerated, it is implied. Do you know what the words “enumerated” and “implied” mean? You at least know the latter, because you just described it above. I haven’t even stated my opinion on abortion yet and you already have an issue, boy howdy. I just called the ruling bad and the legal basis piss poor because that’s what it is. Roe v. Wade is a specific example of the judiciary doing exactly what you describe as “solo operating”, bypassing the legislature entirely in order to get a desired result. It’s, as I mentioned before, legislating from the bench and making up rights out of whole cloth.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Tyranny of the minority, only 14% of Americans are staunchly "pro-life." The real reason behind this also has nothing to do with the bible, as we millennials aren't popping out enough crotch goblins to fill the lithium mines. Next they'll go after birth control and same-sex marriage. We're in the theocratic fascist endgame now.

That's funny coming from a liberal who claims to fight for the minority.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Wow, fucking holy mother of shit... you totally didn't understood my first comment.

Me: Women amd only women needs the right to choose
If you're pro life, go take care of the lives of children you defend so much.

Jonhathon:

It's not my job to raise other peoples children. It's the parents job to raise and nurture their offspring. Why do you support the parents not feeding their children?

 

[Xzi]

That's funny coming from a liberal who claims to fight for the minority.

Leftists are also a minority in this country with no political party to represent us, yes. Difference is we want to grant people more rights, not slowly strip away the old ones. I'm also not sure if this is supposed to be a "gotcha" or just you starting to learn basic math for the first time.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Leftists are also a minority in this country with no political party to represent us, yes. Difference is we want to grant people more rights, not slowly strip away the old ones. I'm also not sure if this is supposed to be a "gotcha" or just you starting to learn basic math for the first time.

You claim to fight for minorities, yet you attack a minority. I'm not sure if you're just learning reading comprehension for the first time.

 

[Glyptofane]

Nice distraction just in time for midterms.

 

[Xzi]

You claim to fight for minorities, yet you attack a minority. I'm not sure if you're just learning reading comprehension for the first time.

Bruh, how'd you pack six tons of horse shit into a single sentence? Having minority political beliefs does not automatically make you a moral or ethical person, it's entirely down to the substance of those beliefs. Authoritarianism and oppression don't become any easier to swallow just because they're doled out by zealots and megalomaniacs.

 

[Foxi4]

@Xzi @JonhathonBaxster Think you two could take it to PM’s instead of having a cat fight in here? That is, unless your little squabble about minorities has anything at all to do with the subject? The link is tenuous at best.

 

[ZeroFX]

what about rape? what about when the semen donor gone missing? what about children? what about those not capable of understanding the consequences? what about those forced?

Whataboutism in a nutshell ^