I agree with the SC decision but I'm pro-choice.

[NolanVoyd]

Abortion is not in the constitution.

Who said abortion was in the constitution?

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

What does the general warfare mean exactly.
Or does it just mean what ever you want it to mean at that moment.


Going by your logic it would be fairly easy to ban abortion based on general welfare. We have to low of a birth rate as a country and more babies would be to the general welfare of the country.


Don’t get me wrong I don’t agree with that idea but when you pretend that the general welfare clause can cover anything it leaves it open to that. And that’s not even getting into the welfare of the unborn kid.

Legal precedent -- Roe vs Wade, Planned Parenthood vs Danforth -- has established that abortion DOES promote the general welfare, by giving women the right to make health decisions regarding their own bodies.

Which is why it was wrong what the Supreme Court did today.

 

[independentusa]

Abortion is not in the constitution. That's a pretty neutral position. A stronger pro-life position is that a fetus is a human being that has certain constitutional guarantees. If you say that abortion is not a constitutional issue and is up to the states then you're essentially saying that a fetus doesn't have any constitutional rights. But of course, the Court is also saying that the parent doesn't have any constitutional right to terminate the pregnancy.

I'm personally pro-life. I believe a fetus of any age is a human life. But I don't think that I should impose that belief on my fellow citizens by using the power of the government. Moreover, I don't think that such laws are effective. People who want abortions will travel or find other potentially dangerous means. Religious people should focus on persuading people not coercing them using Big Government threats of incarceration.

Moreover, the Court's decision clears the way for a national abortion ban. I doubt Republicans want the election to become a national referendum on abortion.

So, now this becomes a local issue for voters and this is a losing issue for Republicans. Even heavily Catholic Mexico voted to legalize abortion. Republicans are trying to swim upstream against the current of progress.

My idea is that we completely detach abortion from politics and make abortion a local referendum. That way it's not up to politicians to change the laws on abortion but up to the local people. Now Catholics can vote for Democrats without this abortion issue clouding their choice.

Sorry, if you go by what you have written, you are not pro choice, not by a long shot. You sound more like a pro birth.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Understanding that something odd not in the constitution does not mean one is against that thing.

Nothing sure how this is a hard concept to grasp.

Huh? How is contraception "odd"?

Human beings have been trying to prevent pregnancies as long as they've been having sex.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Sorry, if you go by what you have written, you are not pro choice, not by a long shot. You sound more like a pro birth.

I believe that the government shouldn't be used to impose my personal religious views on abortion on other citizens. How is that not pro-choice?

I just don't believe it's a constitutional issue. I think it's better to leave it to referendums so we can depolarize our politics. In the end, I think the pro-choice position is the majority view anyway.

 

[braindrain]

Legal precedent -- Roe vs Wade, Planned Parenthood vs Danforth -- has established that abortion DOES promote the general welfare, by giving women the right to make health decisions regarding their own bodies.

Which is why it was wrong what the Supreme Court did today.

Yes I know that the Supreme Court at one time made a right out of thin air. Just like the current one went back to what is actually in the constitution.

 

[braindrain]

Sorry, if you go by what you have written, you are not pro choice, not by a long shot. You sound more like a pro birth.

No he just actually understand what is in the constitution and don’t pretend it means whatever we want it to.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

I just don't believe it's a constitutional issue. I think it's better to leave it to referendums so we can depolarize our politics. In the end, I think the pro-choice position is the majority view anyway.

You're TOTALLY contradicting yourself. In the title of your thread, you said you agree with the Supreme Court decision. Now you're saying you don't.

If it's not a constitutional issue, then you do NOT agree with the SC decision.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Yes I know that the Supreme Court at one time made a right out of thin air. Just like the current one went back to what is actually in the constitution.

No they didn't.

Where do you get that crap?

 

[braindrain]

Huh? How is contraception "odd"?

Human beings have been trying to prevent pregnancies as long as they've been having sex.

It was a typo. Should have said is. Still not sure how you got that I was talking about contraception but what ever.

 

[braindrain]

No they didn't.

Where do you get that crap?

Yes they did.

Where do you think they come up with it from.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Yes I know that the Supreme Court at one time made a right out of thin air. Just like the current one went back to what is actually in the constitution.

By that same standard, you must be against contraception as well.

 

[braindrain]

By that same standard, you must be against contraception as well.

Only in your head.

I support abortion and contraception. I just have read the constitution and have not seen a mention of that anywhere.
I would happily vote for an amendment to add it to it but I am not going to pretend it says something it doesn’t.

 

[Integrityrespec]

That's the best argument but you're ignoring the fetus. You're completely ignoring the issue of whether a fetus is a human being with rights. Does the fetus have the right to the pursuit of happiness?

My belief and your belief may differ but should the federal government have a right to decide this either way?

All I'm really saying is that we're all better off if we leave this issue to local referendums and depolarize our politics. If we do this your position will win anyway. Only developing nations ban abortions today. It's a losing issue for Republicans.

The real problem with abortion is you have to totally disregard the life of the victim, that child in the womb. The left knew people would be sympathetic to the baby so they began their campaign to dehumanize the baby. For so many it works because it relieves them of responsibility and we have lots of people who don't want responsibility for anything they do. That's another page of the victim card the left likes to play. Any way you cut it, abortion takes a life.

 

[BlueTex]

What does the general warfare mean exactly.
Or does it just mean what ever you want it to mean at that moment.


Going by your logic it would be fairly easy to ban abortion based on general welfare. We have to low of a birth rate as a country and more babies would be to the general welfare of the country.


Don’t get me wrong I don’t agree with that idea but when you pretend that the general welfare clause can cover anything it leaves it open to that. And that’s not even getting into the welfare of the unborn kid.

Something like this...

to invoke Congressional authority, including the powers of Congress under the commerce clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its powers under the necessary and proper clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

You're TOTALLY contradicting yourself. In the title of your thread, you said you agree with the Supreme Court decision. Now you're saying you don't.

If it's not a constitutional issue, then you do NOT agree with the SC decision.

The Court ruled that the right to an abortion is not a constitutional right. So, how am I contradicting myself?

Maybe I misunderstood the Court's decision. Please explain.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Yes they did.

Where do you think they come up with it from.

No, they didn't.

Roe vs wade is very conservative legal decision. It says that the government has no business getting involved in people's personal decisions. You know, get the government off the backs of the people. Conservative.

It is based on the right to privacy, not the right to the abortion.

Privacy is implied in the constitution and the Supreme Court has upheld the right to privacy over and over.

Thanks to conservatives in name only, they just did away with the right to privacy.

Congratulations.

Now big government can be all up in your business in all kinds of ways.

 

[braindrain]

Something like this...

to invoke Congressional authority, including the powers of Congress under the commerce clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and its powers under the necessary and proper clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Yeah we both know that doesn’t answer my question but nice try.

The fact that that is the best you can come up with proves that deep down you know your answer was BS.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

Only in your head.

I support abortion and contraception. I just have read the constitution and have not seen a mention of that anywhere.
I would happily vote for an amendment to add it to it but I am not going to pretend it says something it doesn’t.

So did the Supreme Court "invent a new right out of thin air" with this historic decision in 1965 regarding contraception? --

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.[1] The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control". By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".[2]

Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to YOUR OWN LOGIC, contraception should be unconstitutional and illegal, if you apply the same standard that you're using for abortion.

Your view of the Constitution and legal history is simplistic beyond belief.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The Court ruled that the right to an abortion is not a constitutional right. So, how am I contradicting myself?

Maybe I misunderstood the Court's decision. Please explain.

No.

The court ruled that Americans have no right to privacy.

Great job.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The real problem with abortion is you have to totally disregard the life of the victim, that child in the womb. The left knew people would be sympathetic to the baby so they began their campaign to dehumanize the baby. For so many it works because it relieves them of responsibility and we have lots of people who don't want responsibility for anything they do. That's another page of the victim card the left likes to play. Any way you cut it, abortion takes a life.

I agree with you but do you really want the government to decide if you can have an abortion? What if your wife is raped, should government decide? What if you can't prove she was raped, should government decide? What if it's a choice between your wife's life and the child, should government decide?

Do you want to expand the role of government or limit it?

Moreover, why not focus on convincing your fellow citizens instead of coercing them?

 

[Antiwar]

With respect:

The slave owner written deed to the stolen land that became America doesn't have to enumerate every right. That's an absurd position.

Why would those supremacist scumbags be looked to for anything about human rights? Eff the 'founding fathers' and 'framers'! Eff constitution worshippers! Eff the supremacist court!

 

[braindrain]

No, they didn't.

Roe vs wade is very conservative legal decision. It says that the government has no business getting involved in people's personal decisions. You know, get the government off the backs of the people. Conservative.

It is based on the right to privacy, not the right to the abortion.

Privacy is implied in the constitution and the Supreme Court has upheld the right to privacy over and over.

Thanks to conservatives in name only, they just did away with the right to privacy.

Congratulations.

Now big government can be all up in your business in all kinds of ways.

The US government has been involved in our medical decisions since pretty much day one. Pretending that all of a sudden the government had no say it is just dishonest nonsense.

But tell me if we have a right to privacy that means the federal government has no say in what we do with our bodies then how exactly are the DEA, FDA and the ATF legal.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Legal precedent -- Roe vs Wade, Planned Parenthood vs Danforth -- has established that abortion DOES promote the general welfare, by giving women the right to make health decisions regarding their own bodies.

Which is why it was wrong what the Supreme Court did today.

Doesn't promote the welfare of that baby.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Only in your head.

I support abortion and contraception. I just have read the constitution and have not seen a mention of that anywhere.
I would happily vote for an amendment to add it to it but I am not going to pretend it says something it doesn’t.

Where did you get the weird idea that abortion would be mentioned in the constitution?

Seems a civics class is in order.you don't seem to know how it works.

The constitution doesn't list everything that it allows. It would be 10,000 pages long.

Roe vs wade comes from the right to privacy not the right to abortion.