• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After Roe was overturned, US had infant mortality spike, researchers say

Ganondagan said:
The opposing argument comes from the American left...if you don't like what the Constitution says just ignore it. Leave it for the courts to figure out. Guess what, the Supreme Court figured it out.
Click to expand...

You said it was wrong...so explain how?

 
Lursa said:
You said it was wrong...so explain how?

Click to expand...

I thought we already went over this. The Constitution does not give the federal government enumerated power to interfere on the issue of abortion. If they do, it is unConsitutional and any decision they make needs to be overturned, which is exactly what happened in the Dobbs decision.
 
Artymoon said:
So, in order to keep infant mortality at a lower rate we need to abort more babies?
Click to expand...
Yes. We need to kill them in the womb. That's what a civilized society does, right?
 
Boots said:
Yes. We need to kill them in the womb. That's what a civilized society does, right?
Click to expand...

For those who have escaped abortion the mothers should have a grace period of five years after birth to legally kill them anyway.
 
Ganondagan said:
Difficult decision. Not everything in life is easy. That's what morals are for, the difficut decisions.
Click to expand...
In my view, you are saying: "I want you to make what I view as the moral decision when it requires nothing of me."

I think it would be much more morally consistent to say that "I am against abortion in the cases of down syndrome, or a significant disability diagnosed in the fetus. However, I am in favor of much more assistance to children and adults with significant disabilities, and I am in favor of much more assistance for their families that have to provide their care. Even if it costs me more in taxes."
 

You do what you think is right to do. I'm sticking with my position...non-medical abortions are immoral.
 
Ganondagan said:
You do what you think is right to do. I'm sticking with my position...non-medical abortions are immoral.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly my point. You have taken the only moral position you can take that requires nothing from you.

You: "Don't abort that fetus with Down's Syndrome."

Pregnant woman: "They will require care their entire life, including potentially after I die. Will you at least petition your congressman to improve the safety-net the disabled and their families?"

You: "No, that is your problem, not mine."
 

And?
 
Gordy327 said:
Your vagueness is why your assertions cannot be taken at face value.
Click to expand...
You didn't dispute the evidence I put forth that morality influenced civil rights laws in 1964. Where's your citations supporting the assertion that law is not influenced by morality?

Gordy327 said:
The Constitution itself is the basis of our laws. The judicial branch determines the constitutionality of laws or interprets them when issues arise.
Click to expand...
You didn't explain why abortion restrictions have no legal basis and go against the constitution.

Why quote what I said and not address it?

Once again, please explain why the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion restrictions if abortion restrictions have no legal basis, no justification, and infringes on multiple rights outlined the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
You are repeating yourself. Yet they did so. So...you are wrong.

You are making unfounded statements that you cannot backup. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage, child schooling, or birth control either, for examples...and yet...federal laws protecting and addressing them.

 
Boots said:
Yes. We need to kill them in the womb. That's what a civilized society does, right?
Click to expand...

To protect women, families, and the many others they are responsible to and for...of course. What civilized society would remove that decision from the woman who knows best...to allow the state to protect the unborn at the expense of ALL those others?

 
Ganondagan said:
You do what you think is right to do. I'm sticking with my position...non-medical abortions are immoral.
Click to expand...
Abortions have increased to over 1,00,000 since Dobbs. 75% of those abortions were made by women and families living near, at or below the poverty line and made the decision to abort based on the stress in their lives making them unable to give that child a caring, stable, loving life. Aborting an embryo before it is sentient is the right thing to do if you cannot support a child.

Forcing the birth of that child, creating more stress, poverty and instability in the family increases infant and maternal mortality, produces more handicapped children, more child and spousal abuse, increases welfare costs, decreases education and employment. Can you explain why you think banning abortion is a sensible and moral position?
 

Read the 10th amendment:

Tenth Amendment​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)​

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the 2022 Supreme Court case that reversed Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the decisions that originally asserted the fundamental right to an abortion prior to the viability of the fetus. Dobbs v. Jackson states that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; and, the authority to regulate abortion is “returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
Full text of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)
 

I don't think banning abortion is a sensible decision. With some restrictions it may be considered moral by elected state legislators. Those of you who think this is a legal decision may want to rethink that.
 
You said, " My position is based on abortion as a moral issue". Now that your morality is being questioned and you are being asked to defend higher infant mortality, increased poverty, increase in abortions, increased domestic violence and higher taxes you switch the argument to the Constitution.

You're not being honest about your reasoning for supporting banning abortions.
 

This is a decision that has also placed the exact examples I gave you st the same risk. They are included under the umbrella of precedents that protected abortion.

They've already mentioned SSM and birth control "next". Dobbs won't stand either...or they will find other Constituional grounds to protect them, including abortion. There are other Constituional ammendments that could have been used in RvW, and werent. Other justices have mentioned this/them.


 

I really don't care if my morality is being questioned.
 

I think giving the federal goverment the right to regulate abortion would require an amendment to the Constitution.
 
Ganondagan said:
I think giving the federal goverment the right to regulate abortion would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
It doesn't because the Supreme Court said so.

Under Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) which involves a federal law on partial birth abortion, the decision mentions congress using the commerce clause to regulate the medical profession. Needless to say, the court upheld the ban enacted by congress, 5 to 4. Congress does have the power under the commerce clause to regulate abortion. Interestingly enough, the partial birth abortion ban has no exceptions for the mother's health.

Another tidbit that I found is that congress recognized a moral & ethical consensus that partial birth abortion is gruesome/inhumane which demonstrates yet again that morality has influenced law:
The Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the
practice of performing a partial-birth abortion
Click to expand...
Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ105/html/PLAW-108publ105.htm
 
Last edited:
How many of those were pregnancies due to rape and/or incest? How many were due to a pregnant child? How many were due to a woman's life being at risk?
 
Ganondagan said:
I think giving the federal goverment the right to regulate abortion would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Do we also need an amendment for regulating birth control and public schooling? Not so far.

We didnt even amend the Const for SSM.

RvW, in the decision, was also covered by the 9th Amendment.

"The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the rights listed in the Constitution do not deny or disparage other rights that are retained by the people. The rights that are not listed in the Constitution are known as "unenumerated" rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy are all considered unenumerated rights." link​

The Const is not a list of all of our rights. We have a right to pretty much anything unless it's specifically called out as not. Where is abortion denied in the Const?

Here's a list of our 9th A rights.

• right to an abortion based on right to privacy[ii].​
• right to choose and follow a profession[iii];​
• right to attend and report on criminal trials[iv];​
• right to receive equal protection not only from the states but also from the federal government[v];​
• right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime[vi];​
• right to associate with others[vii];​
• right to privacy[viii];​
• right to travel within the United States[ix];​
• right to marry or not to marry[x];​
• right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]​
• right to educate one’s children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state[xii];​
• right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud, and to cast a ballot equal in weight to those of other citizens[xiii];​
• right to use the federal courts and other governmental institutions and to urge others to use these processes to protect their interests[xiv];​
• right to retain American citizenship, despite even criminal activities, until explicitly and voluntarily renouncing it[xv];​
link​

The one in bold still stands btw. How does banning or restricting abortion not violate that?

 
Lursa said:
• right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
The one in bold still stands btw. How does banning or restricting abortion not violate that?
Click to expand...
It doesn't because the courts have not adjudicated that abortion restrictions after Dobbs violate the one in bold. Cite one court case that uses the reasoning in bold to overturn an abortion restriction after Dobbs.

Additionally, the quoted citation "[xi]" cites Roe v. Wade as one of the cases, which has been overturned.
 

It hasnt been that I know of. I'd like to see it challenged in court. No one ever seems to consider it.

 

I understand the 9th Amendment is very important and I wouldn't want to challenge that. But how do you think the bolded link guarantees a right to abortion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.