• 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!

I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

watsup said:
Yeah, I’m sure that you hated it when the Supreme Court established top-down restrictions on the ability of states to segregate black children from “whitel” schools or to restrict the ability for people to marry whomever they wanted. Those terrible top-down edicts, eh?
Click to expand...

Fishking said:
Thank you for supporting my point via your desperate attempt to deflect away to a different subject because you have nothing.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what is so Scary if the Supreme Court overturns Roe and sends it back to states.

Then all of our Rights to privacy could be jeopardy and the SC could overturn and sent back lots of Right to privacy SC decisions to the States including Contraceptive Rights,Including marriage rights, including rearing our children, including , civil rights etc.

What about the right to chose the type to a school they want their child to instead of the one that
picked out your individual state ?

……..

The following cases could become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned.



Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.

…….



States already have too much authority and then of course they want the Federal government to cover the cost of states rights,
 
Last edited:
Fishking said:
What you're trying to do is move the goal post and I'm not budging. Dems want to dictate from the top-down, they always have. Overturning Roe puts the choice back into the hands of the people. Full stop.
Click to expand...
What people? The people in control are deciding whether to impose their beliefs on all the people affected, regardless of their beliefs. And, the people in control that do this are the Republicans, the anti-choice Republicans. So, there will be many women in red states who will have someone else's beliefs imposed upon them - women who do not believe what these Republicans believe. How own earth does that put choice back into the hands of the people? These women have no choice because others' beliefs are being imposed upon them.

I give up. One cannot reason with unreasonable people.
 
dockside said:
What people? The people in control are deciding whether to impose their beliefs on all the people affected, regardless of their beliefs. And, the people in control that do this are the Republicans, the anti-choice Republicans. So, there will be many women in red states who will have someone else's beliefs imposed upon them - women who do not believe what these Republicans believe. How own earth does that put choice back into the hands of the people? These women have no choice because others' beliefs are being imposed upon them.

I give up. One cannot reason with unreasonable people.
Click to expand...

Well said.
I agree.

With Roe no individual was forced to follow another person’s religious tenets.

The choice was left up to the pregnant woman , her doctor and her faith if she was religious.

When it goes back to individual states the states may force religious tenets on the pregnant women in their states.
 
minnie616 said:
Well said.
I agree.

With Roe no individual was forced to follow another person’s religious tenets.

The choice was left up to the pregnant woman , her doctor and her faith if she was religious.

When it goes back to individual states the states may force religious tenets on the pregnant women in their states.
Click to expand...

The cult of the Evangelicals, along with some anti-abortion extremist Catholics who just happen to be on the Supreme Court. A majority of mainstream Protestants and most Catholic laity support choice.
 
Lursa said:
She does and she's also posted that she's dyslexic. I'd bet you've seen that.

And now we've seen you divert into "the weeds," the irrelevant, to avoid directly responding to her post.
Click to expand...
And I'm supposed to remember all of her (or your) problems?

Lord you folks are self-centered.
 
watsup said:
What a totally ridiculous statement. We are in a thread about abortion started by YOU, and yet you won’t reveal your own “position in abortion”. If that’s the game that you want to play, then it is perfectly reasonable that we discern it from your inputs. Now please quit whining.
Click to expand...
No. What's totally ridiculous (and rather amusing) is that you do not understand the OP even after it's been explained to you.
 
dockside said:
The answer to your question is in the very first sentence of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
That might be a credible argument for federal rights, but that sentence does not prohibit states from granting additional rights within their jurisdiction.
 
NatMorton said:
And I'm supposed to remember all of her (or your) problems?

Lord you folks are self-centered.
Click to expand...

You made a fuss over something minor to avoid the discussion...that's the real message here.

She gave you a civil, constructive, well-thought out response and you shit on it so you could avoid addressing it directly.

That's the reflection back on you.
 
Lursa said:
You made a fuss over something minor to avoid the discussion...that's the real message here.

She gave you a civil, constructive, well-thought out response and you shit on it so you could avoid addressing it directly.

That's the reflection back on you.
Click to expand...
Fuss? I asked a simple question to clarify intent. You're the one who overreacted to it.

:rolleyes:
 
NatMorton said:
No. What's totally ridiculous (and rather amusing) is that you do not understand the OP even after it's been explained to you.
Click to expand...

The title includes the words "abortion debate", and yet we are not allowed to actually debate abortion. Amazing!
 
NatMorton said:
That might be a credible argument for federal rights, but that sentence does not prohibit states from granting additional rights within their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Except in this case they are TAKING AWAY rights. It's fascist overreach to claim that the state owns the result at the moment of conception.
 
watsup said:
Except in this case they are TAKING AWAY rights. It's fascist overreach to claim that the state owns the result at the moment of conception.
Click to expand...
It’s removing a right the court had no authority to establish.
 
NatMorton said:
Fuss? I asked a simple question to clarify intent. You're the one who overreacted to it.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No...you created a personal attack. So...do you understand the clarification? Did you respond directly to the post?

Nope :rolleyes:

That lying is also a reflection on you.
 
NatMorton said:
It’s removing a right the court had no authority to establish.
Click to expand...

They didnt establish a right...they are protecting rights that denying a safer medical procedure would violate.

A woman has a right to have an abortion, just like people have a right to consensual sex, to reproduce, to travel around the country, etc. Where have those other 'rights' been established? I dont know of anywhere, I just know they're protected.
 
FTKIVBFXwBE6hYW
 
The Baron said:
You've missed the point and the point is that you're a hypocrite. You rage that "people with personal or corrupted morality cant force it on others" (speaking of pro-lifers) and yet you would not hesitate the rest of the world to live by your own wicked standards.

It's hypocrisy.

Forced on me? Nothing. Forced on the most innocent still in the womb? Their murder.

Again, at least we agree it's killing.

I'm not sure I understand your question--"banning abortion from fertilization"?
Ask your question differently.

Not for the child.

It is obligated to protect the lives of everyone...including the most vulnerable among us.

And yet it was SCOTUS that appears poised to overturn RvW.


I won't deny it. I will state that it is wrong.

Perhaps this, too, will have to be re-examined now that RvW is poised to be overturned.
Click to expand...
The government is not obligated to protect the lives of everyone. It is obligated to protect the right to life of persons.

Embryos and fetuses are not persons, because Article 1 Section 2 of the US Constitution provides one very specific criterion for being a person when it says all persons have to be "actually enumerated" in a Census every 10 years. This logically implies that persons can be actually enumerated and do not have to be a projected count.

Not all women have regular periods, not all pregnant women have morning sickness, and women who have false pregnancies have various symptoms, including even feeling a fetus move, so none of these things is adequate evidence of pregnancy and wouldn't have been in the late 1700s at the writing of that article or in the latter 1800s at the passage of the 14th Amendment.

Even evidence of pregnancy doesn't provide evidence of how many embryos or fetuses are inside the woman. Some are molar pregnancies and ectopic pregnancies. Some are twin or triplet pregnancies. In some pregnancies, there is evidence of a vanished twin later in pregnancy.

Even with all our fancy technology today, a sonogram can be mistaken and not show a twin or triplet. Moreover, a molar pregnancy is a real pregnancy without an embryo or fetus.

The point is that, whatever SCOTUS does, it can never change the fact that embryos and fetuses do not meet the clear minimal requirement for being persons according to Article 1 Section 2, and that requirement remained unchanged at the time of the 14th Amendment. So if they were to claim that the 14th A clause on person's right to life, liberty, property applies to an embryo or fetus, they would be telling an objective empirical untruth.

And meanwhile, the government does have an obligation to protect the rights to life, liberty, and property of the woman who is pregnant, because she not only meets the clear minimal requirement for being a person. On the list of questions for the first census, there is a category for free white women, and after the 13th Amendment, all women were free and so fit the question on all other free persons. Embryos and fetuses don't have rights. Period.
 
Fishking said:
What you're trying to do is move the goal post and I'm not budging. Dems want to dictate from the top-down, they always have. Overturning Roe puts the choice back into the hands of the people. Full stop.
Click to expand...
No, Dems are specifically saying No dictating. It is Republicans who are demanding the right to control the inside of women's bodies in what is perhaps a violation of bodies more egregious than forceable rape. You, a supporter of Republicans, essentially want to rape any woman or girl in the name of the majority in your state, while the Democrats are trying to help her flee from your horrible action.

You're the one trying to move the goal post, and I'm not budging.

For decades, Republicans like Ross Perot told ya'll that it was completely un-Republican to be anti-choice on the issue of abortion, that it was inconsistent with other Republican values. And Republicans are now no longer people who even support democracy. They only care about controlling other people, their bodies, and their lives.

Overturning Roe allows GOP perverts to rape girls and women. Disgusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom