It is time for abortion to stop being a political football.

[Scrabaholic]

If you want to debate me, please do it w/o ridiculous assumptions.

I haven't made any, so mission accomplished.

 

[Atreus21]

Abortion is still legal, and frankly there is no sign of that changing. The current Supreme Court, even though it leans more conservative, is also unlikely to overturn such a long-established ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts says he cares deeply about the Court’s reputation for being above partisanship, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh has repeatedly expressed his respect for precedent. Even if an overturn of Roe happened, improbable as it is, that just means it would become a matter of legislation, possibly Federal or possibly State, and the odds are abortion would remain legal across much or all of the country.

If Roe is overturned, the issue will be returned to legislatures where it belongs. If people's representatives desire legalized abortion, they're free to protect it.

The issue is a political football because the SCOTUS removed it from normal political deliberation in Roe v. Wade, which is an outrageous seizure of power. It's nearly as outrageous as the practice of abortion itself.

 

[Scrabaholic]

If Roe is overturned, the issue will be returned to legislatures where it belongs. If people's representatives desire legalized abortion, they're free to protect it.

The issue is a political football because the SCOTUS removed it from normal political deliberation in Roe v. Wade, which is an outrageous seizure of power. It's nearly as outrageous as the practice of abortion itself.

The govt. should not be involved at all. It should be between a woman and her doctor.

 

[Lursa]

If Roe is overturned, the issue will be returned to legislatures where it belongs. If people's representatives desire legalized abortion, they're free to protect it.

The issue is a political football because the SCOTUS removed it from normal political deliberation in Roe v. Wade, which is an outrageous seizure of power. It's nearly as outrageous as the practice of abortion itself.

No state can create law that violates women's Constitutional rights. That's why, in the last 2 yrs, the states that voted to ban or criminalize having an abortion were all overturned in their state supreme courts as unconstitutional and none were enacted.

 

[Atreus21]

No state can create law that violates women's Constitutional rights. That's why, in the last 2 yrs, the states that voted to ban or criminalize having an abortion were all overturned in their state supreme courts as unconstitutional and none were enacted.

Not all abortion restrictions have been overturned. The partial-birth abortion ban was upheld.

But it's beside the point anyway. The constitution can be changed, and so can its interpretation. It required creative interpretation to protect abortion, slavery, and other ills. It just as well may be amended or interpreted to protect human lives. That's why supreme court nominees have become so contentious.

 

[Lursa]

Not all abortion restrictions have been overturned. The partial-birth abortion ban was upheld.

But it's beside the point anyway. The constitution can be changed, and so can its interpretation. It required creative interpretation to protect abortion, slavery, and other ills. It just as well may be amended or interpreted to protect human lives. That's why supreme court nominees have become so contentious.

Please read better. I said ban or criminalize. Yes, there may be some restrictions but the states cannot ban or criminalize having an abortion and there are already other states that have said they will NOT pass such laws and will enable the safe transportation of women in other states if needed.

What justification would SCOTUS have to "reinterpret" the Const ("change") to allow women's rights to be violated by allowing the unborn to supersede them? The Const protects women's rights just like men's. We're equal...what justification is there to allow for the violation of our rights to bodily autonomy, due process, medical and reproductive privacy? Are they removing those rights for men too?

What are examples of LEGAL justifications that you suggest SCOTUS could use to allow for those violations of women's rights? (Or uphold laws created by Congress that are unconstitutional? Or conflicting laws from amendments?)

 

[Atreus21]

Please read better. I said ban or criminalize.

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

Yes, there may be some restrictions but the states cannot ban or criminalize having an abortion and there are already other states that have said they will NOT pass such laws and will enable the safe transportation of women in other states if needed.

What justification would SCOTUS have to "reinterpret" the Const ("change") to allow women's rights to be violated by allowing the unborn to supersede them? The Const protects women's rights just like men's. We're equal...what justification is there to allow for the violation of our rights to bodily autonomy, due process, medical and reproductive privacy? Are they removing those rights for men too?

The same way Brown v Board reinterpreted Plessy, or the 13th amendment voided Dred Scott. People can be convinced to oppose horrific injustices when the truth is available to them.

What are examples of LEGAL justifications that you suggest SCOTUS could use to allow for those violations of women's rights? (Or uphold laws created by Congress that are unconstitutional? Or conflicting laws from amendments?)

The 14th amendment.

 

[Lursa]

Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

No...I didnt move the goalposts. I clearly wrote those words in the post you responded to.

OTOH, what else were you looking for then?

The same way Brown v Board reinterpreted Plessy, or the 13th amendment voided Dred Scott. People can be convinced to oppose horrific injustices when the truth is available to them.

And the majority of Americans support elective abortion, so there will be no such 'convincing' but that's not the point I was making (I made a different argument that you ignored)

I asked you for your ideas on legal justifications FOR such change. You claim they can do it. Please explain how. What legal basis for those changes would you have the justices consider in order to support laws that violate women's rights?

The 14th amendment.

What about it? It explicitly states 'born' people and naturalized citizens.

And here's the opening statement of the 14th.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "​

This shows that SCOTUS must uphold the rights of women ahead of any interest in the unborn.

 

[Atreus21]

No...I didnt move the goalposts. I clearly wrote those words in the post you responded to.

OTOH, what else were you looking for then?

You said banned or criminalized. I sourced an example of banned, and that wasn't good enough.

That's moving the goalposts.

And the majority of Americans support elective abortion, so there will be no such 'convincing' but that's not the point I was making (I made a different argument that you ignored)

They used to support slavery too. And be opposed to gay marriage. And all sorts of other things.

I asked you for your ideas on legal justifications FOR such change. You claim they can do it. Please explain how. What legal basis for those changes would you have the justices consider in order to support laws that violate women's rights?

What about it? It explicitly states 'born' people and naturalized citizens.

And here's the opening statement of the 14th.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "​

This shows that SCOTUS must uphold the rights of women ahead of any interest in the unborn.

How was abortion ever illegal before Roe if what you say is true?

 

[Lursa]

You said banned or criminalized. I sourced an example of banned, and that wasn't good enough.
That's moving the goalposts.

No, banning a specific type of abortion is not banning abortion. It was just about changing a medical procedure.

They used to support slavery too. And be opposed to gay marriage. And all sorts of other things.

Those all affect people that had rights and you'll have to prove that a majority of Americans supported slavery. Or gay marriage. Blacks in the North had rights....

How was abortion ever illegal before Roe if what you say is true?

So now you understand what the 14th Amendment says? Yes or no?

It wasnt in every state. But in the state where the test case for the woman 'Roe,' it was. And so the law was challenged and SCOTUS found that refusing a woman an elective abortion is unconstitutional, violating many of a woman's rights.

You keep avoiding my questions and asking more. Please answer my questions here before asking more.

What are examples of LEGAL justifications that you suggest SCOTUS could use to allow for those violations of women's rights? (Or uphold laws created by Congress that are unconstitutional? Or conflicting laws from amendments?)​

​

I asked you for your ideas on legal justifications FOR such change. You claim they can do it. Please explain how. What legal basis for those changes would you have the justices consider in order to support laws that violate women's rights?​

What basis can they find to consider allowing for the violation of women's Constitutional rights in the unborn's interest? (Note I write 'interest,' since they have no rights) What are your ideas?

 

[Atreus21]

No, banning a specific type of abortion is not banning abortion. It was just about changing a medical procedure.

Okay, then you're not changing the goalposts. You're splitting hairs.

Those all affect people that had rights and you'll have to prove that a majority of Americans supported slavery. Or gay marriage. Blacks in the North had rights....

Slaves definitely did not have legal rights until the government recognized them. Considering slavery was commonly practiced for the vast majority of human history, I'd say it's the default position that it was popular until recently.

A majority of Americans clearly opposed gay marriage into the mid 2000s. Then they changed their minds.

It wasnt in every state. But in the state where the test case for the woman 'Roe,' it was. And so the law was challenged and SCOTUS found that refusing a woman an elective abortion is unconstitutional, violating many of a woman's rights.

It was illegal in some states and legal in others. Therefore, until Roe v. Wade, banning it or allowing it raised no serious constitutional problems. Then, the oligarchy decided it did.

The point is: laws can change. Cultures can change. Court membership can change. Constitutions can be amended or precedents overturned. If an institution as entrenched as slavery was can be uprooted, so can abortion.

 

[vegas giants]

Okay, then you're not changing the goalposts. You're splitting hairs.



Slaves definitely did not have legal rights until the government recognized them. Considering slavery was commonly practiced for the vast majority of human history, I'd say it's the default position that it was popular until recently.

A majority of Americans clearly opposed gay marriage into the mid 2000s. Then they changed their minds.



It was illegal in some states and legal in others. Therefore, until Roe v. Wade, banning it or allowing it raised no serious constitutional problems. Then, the oligarchy decided it did.

The point is: laws can change. Cultures can change. Court membership can change. Constitutions can be amended or precedents overturned. If an institution as entrenched as slavery was can be uprooted, so can abortion.

Possible but unlikely. Abortion is popular all over the world

 

[Lursa]

Okay, then you're not changing the goalposts. You're splitting hairs.

Slaves definitely did not have legal rights until the government recognized them. Considering slavery was commonly practiced for the vast majority of human history, I'd say it's the default position that it was popular until recently.

A majority of Americans clearly opposed gay marriage into the mid 2000s. Then they changed their minds.

I asked for proof. And black Americans in the North had rights. Certain black people were considered property...and that was wrong. Please show where the majority of Americans every supported that?

Same for gay marriage. It wasnt even an option until recently but once proposed, the majority of our society accepted it very quickly in a historic frame of reference.

It was illegal in some states and legal in others. Therefore, until Roe v. Wade, banning it or allowing it raised no serious constitutional problems. Then, the oligarchy decided it did.

Wow, you dont consider women at all in these discussions, do you? It was a problem for EVERY woman that needed an abortion and was denied one. Violating many of her Const. rights. was involved.

The point is: laws can change. Cultures can change. Court membership can change. Constitutions can be amended or precedents overturned. If an institution as entrenched as slavery was can be uprooted, so can abortion.

OK. And the laws regarding personal liberty and women's rights are progressing, not regressing into the Dark Ages. Our society is not going to once again reduce women to 2nd class citizens again. You do realize that's what it means if the law placed the life of the unborn ahead of the lives (their entire lives, not just heartbeats) of women, right? How do you justify that? It would mean we had fewer rights than men again.

Look at it this way: in the past, SCOTUS considered blacks and women for equality. They recognized us as equal and recognized their/our rights. They've done the same thing for the unborn...and did NOT recognize them as equal nor having any rights. We are not going backwards, SCOTUS will not place the unborn above women.

Btw, the red text isnt an answer. Just saying "we can too!!!" is not an answer, it's not an argument. You need to provide some legal basis besides "yes we can!". Otherwise it's like I say then...nope, not happening. Prove otherwise.