• 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!

Best rebuttal of Alito to date

C

choiceone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
14,780
Reaction score
11,333
Location
NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Paywall. Can you summarize the gist of their argument?
 
Just a quick skim, it says no such thing, everyone know the 14th amendment was specifically written to make the now free slaves US citizens, Indians were not included .
 
The bolded type.
Alito overreached via his political ruling.
 
NatMorton said:
The bold type is an assertion. It's not proof that an assertion is correct.

You've overreached with your reasoning.
Click to expand...
Alito's ruling was based on an ad pop assertion.
Difference being he held the power to enforce.
 
I was able to read the article (the NYT really ought to design their website security with more care). I think there are two paragraphs that summarize Ms Goodwin's argument, and they are these:


It's an interesting analysis and could possibly be the basis for a federal abortion rights act in cases where pregnancy is involuntary. But her argument falls apart when the act that results in conception is voluntary, as it is in most cases.

Even the most favorable reading of this analysis, however, doesn't speak to the core issue: when does a woman, acting on her right to privacy, harm another? This cannot be resolved without legally defining "another," and nothing in the 13th or 14th (or anywhere else in the Constitution) gives Congress or SCOTUS the authority to do this. Only states can.
 

Can states ban birth control since there is no right to marital privacy in the constitution?
 
NatMorton said:
That is complete gibberish, and you're doing your side of the argument no favors.
Click to expand...
It all boils down to an asserted interpretation of the constitution regarding abortion via the 14th.

You could say Roe was ad pop in the day, though granting rights versus an official dispossession of a constitutional right, behold staggering dissimilarities.
 
BlueTex said:
Can states ban birth control since there is no right to marital privacy in the constitution?
Click to expand...
I’ve never said there wasn’t a right to privacy, marital or otherwise, in the Constitution. You’ll need to find someone who’s made that assertion.
 
NatMorton said:
I’ve never said there wasn’t a right to privacy, marital or otherwise, in the Constitution. You’ll need to find someone who’s made that assertion.
Click to expand...

But you conveniently find there is no right to abortion?
 
NatMorton said:
But her argument falls apart when the act that results in conception is voluntary, as it is in most cases.
Click to expand...

An unwanted pregnancy is unwanted whether it's the result of a guy lying about putting on a condom, birth control failing, or rape.

NatMorton said:
Even the most favorable reading of this analysis, however, doesn't speak to the core issue: when does a woman, acting on her right to privacy, harm another? This cannot be resolved without legally defining "another," and nothing in the 13th or 14th
Click to expand...

Funny that you mention the 14th Amendment, which specifies those "born and naturalized"...
 
BlueTex said:
But you conveniently find there is no right to abortion?
Click to expand...
Whether it’s convenient or not is irrelevant. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution because there is no authority granted to the federal government to resolve the central issue of abortion law: a legally binding definition of what is and what is not human life (with rights).
 
Jredbaron96 said:
An unwanted pregnancy is unwanted whether it's the result of a guy lying about putting on a condom, birth control failing, or rape.
Click to expand...
Being raped is not a voluntary act. The other scenarios you describe are.

Jredbaron96 said:
Funny that you mention the 14th Amendment, which specifies those "born and naturalized"...
Click to expand...
Correct. I think one could argue that federally protected rights cannot be extended to the unborn. That does not prohibit a state from creating rights for the unborn within their own jurisdiction.
 


There is no right to marital privacy either.... Is there a right for parents to choose the school where their child attends or can the state force them into public schools?
 
BlueTex said:
There is no right to marital privacy either.... Is there a right for parents to choose the school where their child attends or can the state force them into public schools?
Click to expand...
There is a limited right to privacy in the 4th amendment, and I don’t believe there’s a martial exclusion described anywhere else in the Constitution.

Sorry, you’re camel’s nose argument is going no where.
 
NatMorton said:
Being raped is not a voluntary act. The other scenarios you describe are.
Click to expand...

Obviously not if precautions were taken, then the pregnancy was not intended. A woman in that scenario did not agree to become pregnant.

To argue otherwise is to punish the woman for having sex.

That does not prohibit a state from creating rights for the unborn within their own jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Any retriction on abortion inevitably involves limiting or curtailing the rights of a woman to both pursue her own medical affairs and limits her bodily autonomy.
 
NatMorton said:
There is a limited right to privacy in the 4th amendment, and I don’t believe there’s a martial exclusion described anywhere else in the Constitution.

Sorry, you’re camel’s nose argument is going no where.
Click to expand...

LMAO... Where is a limited right to privacy in the 4th amendment... Are you trying to have penumbra cake and eat it? What about the right to choose your kids school? Can states now compel attendance at public schools?

After setting out the above facts, the Society's bill alleges that the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents' choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void. And, further, that, unless enforcement of the measure is enjoined the corporation's business and property will suffer irreparable injury.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters
supreme.justia.com
 
L
lol this nonsense sounds so stupid it’s not even worth the time to read
 
So the argument is that because black women got pregnant while slaves and had children, and the 13th amendment repealed slavery, that black women have a “right not to reproduce”?

There seems to be a lot of errors with this. This is clearly white journalism graduates at a cocktail party try to make a racially inflammatory nonsense argument.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Obviously not if precautions were taken, then the pregnancy was not intended. A woman in that scenario did not agree to become pregnant.
Click to expand...
The pregnancy may be unwanted, but that does not make it the product of an involuntary act. There is no reason to believe any means of contraception is 100% fail safe.

Jredbaron96 said:
To argue otherwise is to punish the woman for having sex.
Click to expand...
No, it makes them accountable for their voluntary behavior, just as men are.

By your reasoning, any man should be able to avoid child support simply by claiming he did not “agree” to the woman becoming pregnant.


Jredbaron96 said:
Yes it does. Any retriction on abortion inevitably involves limiting or curtailing the rights of a woman to both pursue her own medical affairs and limits her bodily autonomy.
Click to expand...
Of course it does. I have never claimed abortion bans don’t curtail the privacy rights of women or place a limit on their bodily autonomy. I have repeatedly said exactly the opposition. After all our exchanges on this topic, do you really understand so little about my position?

 
BlueTex said:
Can states ban birth control?
Click to expand...
Well because the Supreme Court wrongly ruled in 1965 they can for now. In the future the constitution will be restored and the clear right to do so will be restored with it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well because the Supreme Court wrongly ruled in 1965 they can for now. In the future the constitution will be restored and the clear right to do so will be restored with it.
Click to expand...

Can states compel children to attend public school?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…