• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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

NatMorton said:
Of course. I thought we covered this earlier.
Click to expand...

How can the state grant rights to only SOME of the unborn? Does equal protection not apply? Are not all fetuses equal?
 
NatMorton said:
Roe zealots
Click to expand...
Image
 
BlueTex said:
How can the state grant rights to only SOME of the unborn? Does equal protection not apply? Are not all fetuses equal?
Click to expand...
We have covered this. Go back and read what’s been discussed here about the legal principle of self defense.
 
NatMorton said:
We have covered this. Go back and read what’s been discussed here about the legal principle of self defense.
Click to expand...

LMAO... Is forcing a woman to carry a child to term that she does not wish to carry a valid self-defense claim?
 
BlueTex said:
Oh, penumbral rights DO exist.. On what do you base your opinion that they don't exist for a pregnant woman?
Click to expand...
No, an implied right and the camel’s nose that is a penumbra are not the same things.

I never said rights don’t exist for pregnant women; that is you building a straw-man. Why don’t you try going after the argument I’m actually making and not the one in your head?
 
BlueTex said:
LMAO... Is forcing a woman to carry a child to term that she does not wish to carry a valid self-defense claim?
Click to expand...
the lengths these people go to to try to justify taking privacy away from women is disgusting.

but we all knew the crazy was coming. future generations of young men and women will have a TON of stuff to fix.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yeah, you've written that before, and it's as useless for this debate as it was before and as it is now.

It doesn't matter in the slightest what you *think* is how the Court should operate. The Court's job is to interpret the law and determine it's Constitutionality. And if there is a dispute or uncertainty between what the Constitution says and what a law says, the Court has to try to weigh where the rights granted in the Constitution begin and end, and how it can be balanced against the interests of society. This is why you have freedom of speech, but can get sued for defamation and libel. This is something you and every other originalist seem to forget the moment the Court rules in a way you disapprove of.*

Roe v Wade involved the Court trying to determine when the right to privacy ended and where the State's interest in preserving potential life began. It's why the Court openly declared it couldn't say when human life began because there was no scientific or philosophical consensus, and it wasn't the job of the Court to determine when.

The Court responded with the compromise position of holding that the right to privacy held until the second trimester, before which the State didn't have the authority to determine the private medical affairs of a person, and after which the State began having a vested interest in the protection of potential life.

The Court did *not* say that the Federal Government can determine whether abortion is legal and the States can't, which is why Roe V Wade did strike down some federal regulations on abortion. Nor did Roe say that State's *can't* regulate abortion at all, just that neither the state or federal government can infringe on the right to privacy past a certain point.

It's not surprising that originalists attacked Roe V Wade, but not for the reasons most conservatives on this forum are saying. When originalists first rallied against abortion their arguments hinged on saying there was no right to privacy in the constitution. That line of reasoning largely died after 9/11 with the NSA and the Patriot Act making it uncomfortable for most conservatives to say "you have no right to privacy", but you can still find some right wingers arguing it (including on this forum).

*Convienatly, when an originalist judge makes a grossly illogical argument or flat out makes up legal concepts out of thin air (like Alito has done before), there's hardly a whisper of complaint.
Click to expand...
Very well said.

Your post deserves to be repeated.
I would like it 100 times if I could.
 
CaughtInThe said:
the lengths these people go to to try to justify taking privacy away from women is disgusting.

but we all knew the crazy was coming. future generations of young men and women will have a TON of stuff to fix.
Click to expand...

They consider pregnant women a source for the "domestic supply" of babies available for adoption...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom