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

[American]

@Bodi tough luck eh? I've provided your entire counterargument many times, like in post 2742 and I guess you wont see it to use it.

And he knows no right is absolute...no one's saying that.

Neither is the fabricated right to an abortion.

 

[quip]

Yes, that is confusing. I've been opposed to the status quo (Roe) for decades as I believe it's judicial overreach.

Yet, you premise Roe's third trimester reasoning in forming your argument. So, Roe's "overreach" is partially an overstatement.

 

[Gordy327]

^^^ The dogma is strong in this one.

Nope, only the logic.

 

[Lursa]

Neither is the fabricated right to an abortion.

It's not fabricated. Previously posted:

​

RvW specifically decided that states may not deny women the safer medical procedure of abortion. The procedure is much, much safer than pregnancy/childbirth and they decided that women had the right to choose the safer procedure.​

​

I ask people what, specifically, is unconstitutional about RvW?​

​

Why shouldnt the right to an abortion be protected? They also referred to the 9th in the RvW decision. It's no different than a right to have consensual sex, a right to marry, a right to reproduce, or a right to travel from state to state. It's accorded to the people unless there are reasons to restrict or ban it. (hint: so no one 'invents' it...they just protect it unless there are reasons not to)​

​

RvW decided that the states may not deny women a safe medical procedure if they choose it. It is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.​

From the Roe v Wade decision:

"The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed.​

​

More over, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman's own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy."​

Cue the wailing, "But it's not safer for the "baybeeeee"!"

 

[Bodi]

No, that's not what you said. You claimed that a woman has an absolute right to bodily autonomy while pregnant. That is simply false in the third trimester. There are only two non-evasive responses: acknowledge your error or try to explain why my counter argument is incorrect.

A woman does have that Right over her body and to abort anytime she wants to. Laws and Rights are different things.

 

[quip]

​

I ask people what, specifically, is unconstitutional about RvW?​

They don't have a clue. Most are simply empowered by and mimicking Alito.

 

[NatMorton]

Yet, you premise Roe's third trimester reasoning in forming your argument. So, Roe's "overreach" is partially an overstatement.

No, you're reasoning is flawed there. Whether I like it or not (and I don't because it's judicial overreach), Roe has been the law of the land for 50 years. When I mention that Roe allows states to establish a fetal right to life in the third trimester, that is just a statement of fact. I say it when people mistakenly assert a woman's right to privacy re abortion under Roe is unlimited; it's certainly not.

There is no contradiction in both opposing Roe and stating what Roe does and does not do.

 

[NatMorton]

They don't have a clue. Most are simply empowered by and mimicking Alito.

FWIW, I've been asserting that Roe is unconstitutional, and why, since before Alito was even a federal judge.

 

[NatMorton]

A woman does have that Right over her body and to abort anytime she wants to. Laws and Rights are different things.

That is simply not true, and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Abortion bans exist in over 40 states, and Roe is very clear about when they're permissible.

(Just amazing how many pro-choicers simply cannot handle the facts of this matter.)

 

[quip]

FWIW, I've been asserting that Roe is unconstitutional, and why, since before Alito was even a federal judge.

'Unconstitutional' and an assertion of overreach are not the same.

 

[Lursa]

No, you're reasoning is flawed there. Whether I like it or not (and I don't because it's judicial overreach), Roe has been the law of the land for 50 years. When I mention that Roe allows states to establish a fetal right to life in the third trimester, that is just a statement of fact.

It's not a statement of fact. You have never been able to prove that with sourcing law where they did. Not once.

Why do you persist in lying about this?

 

[NatMorton]

'Unconstitutional' and an assertion of overreach are not the same.

In the context I am using them, they are synonymous.

It would be exactly the same kind of unconstitutional overreach if the court surprised us in the Dobbs decision and inserted a new clause that read something like "We hold that human life begins at conception, and based on federal government's compelling interest in protecting human life, all forms of abortion are banned unless the life of the mother has been medically certified to also be at significant risk."

The court simply lacks the authority to decide when life begins, regardless of what that decision might be.

 

[Lursa]

In the context I am using them, they are synonymous.

It would be exactly the same kind of unconstitutional overreach if the court surprised us in the Dobbs decision and inserted a new clause that read something like "We hold that human life begins at conception, and based on federal government's compelling interest in protecting human life, all forms of abortion are banned unless the life of the mother has been medically certified to also be at significant risk."

The court simply lacks the authority to decide when life begins, regardless of what that decision might be.

Who does have the authority and why?

The medical/biological question has been answered definitively...at fertilization/implantation...unless you have something significantly different?

So then you are referring to a legal definition for recognizing legal status, rights, etc, correct? Who has the authority and why?

 

[Bodi]

That is simply not true, and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Abortion bans exist in over 40 states, and Roe is very clear about when they're permissible.

(Just amazing how many pro-choicers simply cannot handle the facts of this matter.)

You are not listening... What Roe says and what the law says are IRRELELVANT.

Natural rights, like the right to be in control of your own body, is inalienable.

 

[NatMorton]

You are not listening... What Roe says and what the law says are IRRELELVANT.

Natural rights, like the right to be in control of your own body, is inalienable.

Inalienable rights are a fantasy. Alone, they don't exist in any meaningful sense.

 

[quip]

In the context I am using them, they are synonymous.

Which is analogous to your colorful imagination.

It would be exactly the same kind of unconstitutional overreach if the court surprised us in the Dobbs decision and inserted a new clause that read something like "We hold that human life begins at conception, and based on federal government's compelling interest in protecting human life, all forms of abortion are banned unless the life of the mother has been medically certified to also be at significant risk."

#facepalm

The court simply lacks the authority to decide when life begins, regardless of what that decision might be.

Roe's approach was: 14thAmendment/due process/privacy. Your assertion is conspicuously absent.

 

[NatMorton]

Which is analogous to your colorful imagination.

#facepalm

Roe's approach was: 14thAmendment/due process/privacy. Your assertion is conspicuously absent.

If you believe the court has the authority to establish life as beginning no earlier than viability, why can't they change their mind and reset the time to conception?

That's the problem with judicial activism. Once the authority is given to the court to make up new laws as they see fit, there's no justification for ever setting a boundary. It upends the entire system of checks and balances.

 

[Bodi]

Inalienable rights are a fantasy. Alone, they don't exist in any meaningful sense.

We don't live in the State of Nature... so yes, they do exist.

 

[quip]

If you believe the court has the authority to establish life as beginning no earlier than viability, why can't they change their mind and reset the time to conception?

Roe was not a fiat ruling establishing when life begins, rather Roe ruled viability as the point in gestation where bodily autonomy becomes subordinate to the state's compelling interest in the welfare of the woman.

That's the problem with judicial activism. Once the authority is given to the court to make up new laws as they see fit, there's no justification for ever setting a boundary. It upends the entire system of checks and balances.

There was a just boundary, viability was that requisite boundary. Which makes your post quite ironic given that the neo-right seems quite content upon determining both boundry and justification for each and every women.

 

[choiceone]

Like the insane or the mute?

As children are not rocks it is hardly the same thing and, as such, your analogy is useless and unintelligent.

The insane have not always been insane and the mute can convey ideas via sign language, so don't go there.

Children may not be rocks, but the unborn are not persons. The unborn are bodies. Bodies don't have rights. Persons do. That's why it may seem as if bodies have rights, because identical twins beat out the unique DNA argument. But when conjoined twins have only one body but two functional heads with distinct brains and the capacity to express unique perceptions and thoughts, we admit there are two persons.

 

[choiceone]

That is simply not true, and the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Abortion bans exist in over 40 states, and Roe is very clear about when they're permissible.

(Just amazing how many pro-choicers simply cannot handle the facts of this matter.)

She's saying the sovereignty over pregnancy is a transcendent Right whether or not any states or the United States or any other persons acknowledge it or not. I agree.

The only way to counter that right is to be willing to imprison a pregnant woman in a padded cell, put her in a straitjacket, put a barrier between her teeth to prevent her from biting her tongue to commit suicide, and force-feeding her and forcing medical treatment on her for nine months.

If you're not willing to do that to a person, and I can't even imagine doing that to a dog, which is not a person, then you have to realize that any pregnant woman can end a pregnancy even by ending her own life, and that others really don't have any way to stop that short of showing her respect. Force is ultimately worthless.

 

[Bodi]

She's saying the sovereignty over pregnancy is a transcendent Right whether or not any states or the United States or any other persons acknowledge it or not. I agree.

^^^ This

The only way to counter that right is to be willing to imprison a pregnant woman in a padded cell, put her in a straitjacket, put a barrier between her teeth to prevent her from biting her tongue to commit suicide, and force-feeding her and forcing medical treatment on her for nine months.

If you're not willing to do that to a person, and I can't even imagine doing that to a dog, which is not a person, then you have to realize that any pregnant woman can end a pregnancy even by ending her own life, and that others really don't have any way to stop that short of showing her respect. Force is ultimately worthless.

Great post. Vivid. But good

 

[weaver2]

If you believe the court has the authority to establish life as beginning no earlier than viability, why can't they change their mind and reset the time to conception?

And that right there is why the Anti-abortion movement is perceived as a theocratic and their policies being fought in court and in the media. Denial of rights is a step toward theocracy and control.

Paul Weyrich: When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”
"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about the Gospel in a political context."

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

That's the problem with judicial activism. Once the authority is given to the court to make up new laws as they see fit, there's no justification for ever setting a boundary. It upends the entire system of checks and balances.

Overturning of Roe is judicial activism.

 

[Mika-El]

... he says ... in a post ... in a thread ... that is now over 2700 posts long ... and has been averaging ... 70 replies a day for over a month.

Oh look one of your many attempts to discharge a pithy insult.

 

[Mika-El]

^^^ The dogma is strong in this one.

You still at it with the pithy asides? Lol.