• 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!

Roe is just the beginning.... Griswold will be next

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

dncc

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,543
That has already been settled for years. Nothing can legally stop a gay or lesbian couple from marrying.
Sure....

And here in Texas (up until 2 years ago) you couldn't sue some because you thought they were assisting in someone getting an abortion--which is still legal in Texas as of this writing anyway. But now you can sue the person who paid for the abortion, the driver who drove the woman to the clinic, etc... And because of HIPPA, you don't really know if the woman who allegedly got the abortion was pregnant to start with. As long as they don't sue the woman, the nuisance law suits are enough to all but outlaw the practice.

If a state can come up with a completely ridiculous and cockamamie law like we have in Texas and the high court has decided that it's cool...gay and interracial marriage is subject to the same clever laws.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,884
Reaction score
24,986
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.

Why would you think that?

Do you have any evidence that the decisions rendered in those prior cases are not based on sound Constitutional foundations?

That would be (like the decision involving abortions) all depending on how those cases were founded in both the Constitution and legal history.
 

Patriotic Voter

Christian Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
25,289
Reaction score
6,879
Location
Flaw-i-duh
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Sure....

And here in Texas (up until 2 years ago) you couldn't sue some because you thought they were assisting in someone getting an abortion--which is still legal in Texas as of this writing anyway. But now you can sue the person who paid for the abortion, the driver who drove the woman to the clinic, etc... And because of HIPPA, you don't really know if the woman who allegedly got the abortion was pregnant to start with. As long as they don't sue the woman, the nuisance law suits are enough to all but outlaw the practice.

If a state can come up with a completely ridiculous and cockamamie law like we have in Texas and the high court has decided that it's cool...gay and interracial marriage is subject to the same clever laws.

The stupid abortion law has nothing to do with homosexual marriages. You know that.
 

dncc

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,543
Why would you think that?

Do you have any evidence that the decisions rendered in those prior cases are not based on sound Constitutional foundations?

That would be (like the decision involving abortions) all depending on how those cases were founded in both the Constitution and legal history.

Roe was based on what was considered "sound" foundations too....the right to privacy.

And, as I demonstrated earlier, the State of Texas has stopped abortions in Texas by allowing you to sue people whom you merely suspect are involved in assisting a woman in getting an abortion. You can legally kill something by overturning it or you can simply make exercising the right impractical and the Roberts court is okay with that.
 

dncc

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,543
The stupid abortion law has nothing to do with homosexual marriages. You know that.
Its all about Griswold....I wish I were talking about Vacation...but I'm not. Its rather gullible to think that it isn't.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,884
Reaction score
24,986
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Roe was based on what was considered "sound" foundations too....the right to privacy.

And, as I demonstrated earlier, the State of Texas has stopped abortions in Texas by allowing you to sue people whom you merely suspect are involved in assisting a woman in getting an abortion. You can legally kill something by overturning it or you can simply make exercising the right impractical and the Roberts court is okay with that.

Wrongly apparently, which is why one should seek to read the "draft decision" I provided.


Meanwhile, I've never heard of a right to privacy superseding a right to Life (and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)

All of which could rightly apply to an unborn baby.

In fact, one's right to privacy is not absolute either. Laws allow for warrants to violate it, as well as "exigent circumstances" like saving a life.
 
Last edited:

Hamish Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
28,173
Reaction score
23,490
Location
Tucson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Wrongly apparently, which is why one should seek to read the "draft decision" I provided.

Meanwhile, I've never heard of a right to privacy superseding a right to Life (and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)

All of which could rightly apply to an unborn baby.

Or one of your kidneys, if someone needs it, whether or not you consent.
 

dncc

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,543
Wrongly apparently, which is why one should seek to read the "draft decision" I provided.

Meanwhile, I've never heard of a right to privacy superseding a right to Life (and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)

All of which could rightly apply to an unborn baby.

In fact, one's right to privacy is not absolute either. Laws allow for warrants to violate it, as well as "exigent circumstances" like saving a life.
"could"...

As far as government reach is considered....are unborn babies counted in the census? Why not? Well..because they are not born yet. If they were counted in the census...which they are not...there'd be legal standing to extend the rights you cited to the fetus.

You're right about the right to privacy. Do I need your permission to broadcast your medical history, credit history, social security number to anyone I wish? If not..why not--according to the strict interpretation of the constitution you're using in this case.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,884
Reaction score
24,986
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"could"...

As far as government reach is considered....are unborn babies counted in the census? Why not? Well..because they are not born yet. If they were counted in the census...which they are not...there'd be legal standing to extend the rights you cited to the fetus.

False equivalence, as well as a red herring.

There are many people living in the USA who are also not in the census for reasons of legality.

You're right about the right to privacy. Do I need your permission to broadcast your medical history, credit history, social security number to anyone I wish? If not..why not--according to the strict interpretation of the constitution you're using in this case.

Another red herring. :rolleyes:

Trying to deflect the argument to things you THINK are comparable is not a sound or valid response.

Meanwhile, I urge you to READ the draft decision completely, as I did. I'll post it again:


Then respond with a firmer foundation.

P.S. The decision simply overrules those "judicial laws," and passes the function of making law back where it belongs, in State and Federal Legislatures.
 
Last edited:

dncc

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,543
False equivalence, as well as a red herring.

There are many people living in the USA who are also not in the census for reasons of legality.
Ahh... since you want the fetus to have rights if the subject is abortion, you're all for them to have rights. Since you don't want the fetus to have rights if the subject is the census, you're against them having rights.

Can you be any more transparent.
Another red herring. :rolleyes:

Trying to deflect the argument to things you THINK are comparable is not a sound or valid response.

Meanwhile, I urge you to READ the draft decision completely, as I did. I'll post it again:


Then respond with a firmer foundation.

P.S. The decision simply overrules those "judicial laws," and passes the function of making law back where it belongs, in State and Federal Legislatures.
Not sure I was deflecting. I was pointing out that you have no right to privacy. And when I asked you to show me the constitutional foundation that gives it to you...you can't.

I encourage you to come back with a firmer foundation and stop with the double standards.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,884
Reaction score
24,986
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Ahh... since you want the fetus to have rights if the subject is abortion, you're all for them to have rights. Since you don't want the fetus to have rights if the subject is the census, you're against them having rights.

What are you talking about? Still trying to deflect down some strange road of "reasoning" only you can see?

Your issue is a red herring. Period!

Can you be any more transparent.

Can you be any more condescending? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Not sure I was deflecting. I was pointing out that you have no right to privacy. And when I asked you to show me the constitutional foundation that gives it to you...you can't.

I actually can...but that is the problem with "deflections." Trying to take someone down a road THEY think is pertinent, when a review of the FACTS and foundations of an argument would show it is a dead end road with no value to the discussion.

I encourage you to come back with a firmer foundation and stop with the double standards.

LOL.

My "foundation" is a complete reading of the draft decision. Something YOU should be doing so you can actually present valid and sound responses. Instead of emotionally based ones.
 

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
24,687
Reaction score
4,996
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.

What's wrong with that?
 
Top Bottom