• 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!

Protests In Response To Roe v Wade Being Overturned

weaver2 said:
Roe was decided by a mix of Democrats and Republicans. Its authors were honest and accurate about their sources from science, history, and common law that they used to support their decision. There is no indication in their decision that they were attempting to circumvent any laws. Roe does not look like a Star Chamber in action.

The Dobbs decision simply says Roe is wrong; we don't like it. It is poorly written, poorly sourced, interprets history dishonestly and it's unabashedly misogynistic. It's a terrible piece of writing. It looks like the work of a Star Chamber as described by Wikipedia

"Powerful sovereigns often used the body to circumvent the courts and Parliament.[6] For example, a committee of the council – which later became the Court of the Star Chamber – was during the fifteenth century permitted to inflict any punishment except death, without being bound by normal court procedure."
Click to expand...
Don’t give a shite what their party affiliations were or their intent. SCOTUS simply lacks the authority to set a national, legal standard for fetal rights in either direction, and there’s no getting around that fact.
 
NatMorton said:
Now you’re lying. Here are all the posts you’ve directed at me in this thread. None contain sources, only opinion.



You have a problem with the truth, Lursa.
Click to expand...

Dont like being called out about being wrong and then lying about it? Then dont do it or prove your claim. Prove what you wrote in post 123.

See how easy that would be? Go for it. Except I've already proved it was wrong. Including in that thread you posted for Quip in post 141.
 
Lursa said:
Dont like being called out about being wrong and then lying about it? Then dont do it or prove your claim. Prove what you wrote in post 123.

See how easy that would be? Go for it.
Click to expand...
Right now we’re talking about your claim you proved your point with source material. Please cite the post in this thread where you did that or acknowledge you were lying.
 
NatMorton said:
Right now we’re talking about your claim you proved your point with source material. Please cite the post in this thread where you did that or acknowledge you were lying.
Click to expand...

I asked YOU to prove post 123...that's where I entered the conversation. Then I'll provide my rebuttal. You've seen it before and all I have to do is cut and paste it into the thread.

Source your claim in post 123.
 
NatMorton said:
Roe set a standard that asserted, in so many words, a state may not recognize a fetal right to life before the third trimester. The problem his the court had absolutely no authority to impose such a dictate.
Click to expand...
Roe didn't arbitrarily state that that a state couldn't recognize a fetal right to life in the 1st and 2nd trimester. They gave honest and accurate historical and scientific reasons why a woman was free to abort in the 1st and 2nd trimester without the state intruding into her decision. The Dobbs decision gave the states the authority to impose arbitrary anti-abortion laws on women.

Lost in this discussion is that the court has had to address Roe as an issue about abortion in order to claim Roe was unConstitutional because abortion was not enumerated. In fact, the Roe decision was not about abortion but about the right to make personal decisions about private matters without interference from the government. Essentially Dobbs had to make up something about Roe in order to repeal it.
 
Lursa said:
I asked YOU to prove post 123...that's where I entered the conversation. Then I'll provide my rebuttal. You've seen it before and all I have to do is cut and paste it into the thread.

Source your claim in post 123.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no time for someone who lies so often has you do. Just not worth it.

Have a lovely day.
 
weaver2 said:
Roe didn't arbitrarily state that that a state couldn't recognize a fetal right to life in the 1st and 2nd trimester. They gave honest and accurate historical and scientific reasons why a woman was free to abort in the 1st and 2nd trimester without the state intruding into her decision. The Dobbs decision gave the states the authority to impose arbitrary anti-abortion laws on women.
Click to expand...
Good intentions are one thing; authority is another. Your error is in conflating those two concepts.

States have the right to define a fetal right to life, regardless of whether that process is well considered, rushed, or resolved on an Ouija board.
 
NatMorton said:
Don’t give a shite what their party affiliations were or their intent.
Click to expand...
When you say that the SC was "a Star Chamber, a group of appointed elites dictating the law in opposition to state voters." you are most certainly very interested in who they were and what their intent was.
NatMorton said:
SCOTUS simply lacks the authority to set a national, legal standard for fetal rights in either direction, and there’s no getting around that fact.
Click to expand...
The SC has the authority to do pretty much any damn thing they want to do. They can go against voters, popular opinion, Congress, settled law, interpretation of previous law, even rights stated by the Constitution as evidenced by Dobbs.
 
NatMorton said:
States have the right to define a fetal right to life, regardless of whether that process is well considered, rushed, or resolved on an Ouija board.
Click to expand...

We've already established, on another thread, that states do not have a right to define a fetal right to life because it is already defined in the US Code.
 
weaver2 said:
We've already established, on another thread, that states do not have a right to define a fetal right to life because it is already defined in the US Code.
Click to expand...
Now operative law in several states completely refutes that assertion.
 
weaver2 said:
When you say that the SC was "a Star Chamber, a group of appointed elites dictating the law in opposition to state voters." you are most certainly very interested in who they were and what their intent was.
Click to expand...
No, I am telling you I am not interested in their intentions. You can fancy yourself an authority on my state of mind if you like, but to do so is foolish nonsense.

Whatever their intentions, good or bad, they have no more authority to establish a constitutional definition (or restriction) of fetal rights than do you or I.

weaver2 said:
The SC has the authority to do pretty much any damn thing they want to do.
Click to expand...
This is where we differ. Of course, and rather ironically, you are describing SCOTUS as a Star Chamber.
 
NatMorton said:
Sorry, no time for someone who lies so often has you do. Just not worth it.

Have a lovely day.
Click to expand...

Quote where I lied. You are the one lying...and I quoted where. You have the opportunity to prove you're not lying...source your claim in post 123.
 
weaver2 said:
We've already established, on another thread, that states do not have a right to define a fetal right to life because it is already defined in the US Code.
Click to expand...

He's hiding this tho: a state can create law to recognize rights for the unborn, however that law, when enforced or in the protection of those unborn rights, may not violate the woman's federally-recognized rights. The Supremacy Clause means that federal laws supersede state laws and the govt is obligated to protect women's rights (and does not recognize rights for the unborn).

For example, the state cant stop a pregnant woman at a state border to ask where she's going just because she's pregnant. She still has a Const right to due process and privacy.

He's well aware of this but in his posts lacking integrity, he conveniently leaves it out of discussions so he doesnt have to address it.
 
NatMorton said:
Haven't studied the decision, but it would not be the first bit of judicial activism to find its way into federal case law.
Click to expand...

LMAO! heh, it's one of the precedents that RvW was based on. Minnie has posted it many times, including in your OP thread, if you, in all your 'research' and 'knowledge' of RvW dont even know this, havent read it...it's obvious you have no idea what RvW was about or how it was applied. That your grasp of that decision was flawed and poor at best.

Again, it's more evidence that you have no clue what RvW was about, in your claim in post 123.
 
NatMorton said:
Of course, and rather ironically, you are describing SCOTUS as a Star Chamber.
Click to expand...
When the SC wants to be a Star Chamber type of court that's how they behave. We talk about checks and balances but there is absolutely no check on the SC. Most of the time they respect the intent of the Constitution and the law, fortunately. Unfortunately, sometimes they don't. Our democracy is a very fragile form of government.
 
NatMorton said:
Now operative law in several states completely refutes that assertion.
Click to expand...
None of the states that have banned abortion have laws stating that the fetus is a legal person with a right to life. Their new anti-abortion laws may imply that but they have no laws stating that.
 
weaver2 said:
None of the states that have banned abortion have laws stating that the fetus is a legal person with a right to life. Their new anti-abortion laws may imply that but they have no laws stating that.
Click to expand...
What do you then believe is the state’s expressed compelling interest in superseding a woman’s right to privacy in these cases?
 
weaver2 said:
None of the states that have banned abortion have laws stating that the fetus is a legal person with a right to life. Their new anti-abortion laws may imply that but they have no laws stating that.
Click to expand...
… and this.

The Eleventh Circuit panel, led by Chief Judge William Pryor, said Wednesday that “Georgia’s prohibition on abortions after detectable human heartbeat is rational,” and “respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development is a legitimate interest.”
Click to expand...


Source: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/healt...week-abortion-ban-can-take-effect-court-rules
 
NatMorton said:
What do you then believe is the state’s expressed compelling interest in superseding a woman’s right to privacy in these cases?
Click to expand...

You said that you believe it's 'public safety' but did not adequately explain the dangers to the public. At all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom