Roe should be overturned.

[aociswundumho]

lmao... Griswold was CITED in Roe...

Yes, penumbras and emanations. Again, if there is a right to privacy, then it should certainly apply to my finances and to the drugs I put into my own body. Both are very personal, yet you as a progressive, have no problem with government access to my finances and government control over treatment between me and my doctor.

I'll ask you directly: Do you believe I have the right to privacy from government intrusion regarding personal matters? If this right to privacy only applies to contraception, and to a woman in her first trimester, then explain why.

 

[BlueTex]

Yes, penumbras and emanations. Again, if there is a right to privacy, then it should certainly apply to my finances and to the drugs I put into my own body. Both are very personal, yet you as a progressive, have no problem with government access to my finances and government control over treatment between me and my doctor.

I'll ask you directly: Do you believe I have the right to privacy from government intrusion regarding personal matters? If this right to privacy only applies to contraception, and to a woman in her first trimester, then explain why.

Give us an example of how the government accesses your finance... Same with government control over treatment between you and your doctor...

 

[Logician Man]

Yes, penumbras and emanations. Again, if there is a right to privacy, then it should certainly apply to my finances and to the drugs I put into my own body. Both are very personal, yet you as a progressive, have no problem with government access to my finances and government control over treatment between me and my doctor.

I'll ask you directly: Do you believe I have the right to privacy from government intrusion regarding personal matters? If this right to privacy only applies to contraception, and to a woman in her first trimester, then explain why.

You lost the argument the moment you attempted to tell another poster what they think, and why they think as they do. That is clearly above your pay scale.

 

[iguanaman]

There are dissenting opinions in pretty much every SCOTUS decision. Dissenting opinions arent always 'wrong'...sometimes they are just different or 'more correct'.

Scalia had an opinion on ROe V Wade but he wasnt a decider. His opinion is essentially correct and one of the reasons why Roe V Wade remains a subject of discussion. Abortion is a specific selective medical procedure. It is not listed in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the court did then what many courts have refused to do...defaulted to a position of cowardice. The court ruled that the Plaintiff had no standing and that a ruling against abortion was a violation of right to privacy. Rather than ruling on the Constituionality of killing an unborn child they defaulted to the weakest position they could defend and left the door open to continued challenges.

That is just not true at all. The court ruled that a fetus is not a person.

In Roe v. Wade the Court said that a fetus is not a person but "potential life," and thus does not have constitutional rights of its own.

The Court also set up a framework in which the woman's right to abortion and the state's right to protect potential life shift: during the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman's privacy right is strongest and the state may not regulate abortion for any reason; during the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion only to protect the health of the woman; during the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion to promote its interest in the potential life of the fetus, except where abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...f-Roe-v-Wade-and-Other-Key-Abortion-Cases.pdf

 

[iguanaman]

I was reading this article about Amy Barrett:

Opinion | The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett So Dangerous (Published 2020)

Do we really want our rights to be determined by the understandings of centuries ago?

www.nytimes.com

From the above link:



Like it or not, he's correct. Roe is quintessential judicial activism. There is no "right to privacy". I don't mean there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, I mean there is no "right" to privacy period.

Pretty easy to see why. Suppose a woman undresses in her bedroom and walks around naked at night with the lights on and the shades up. A man taking a night walk ogles her naked body from the sidewalk. Is the man violating her "right" to privacy? Should he be punished? Of course not. There are an infinite number of hypothetical scenarios you could come up with where your privacy is invaded, but the invader should definitely not be punished.

Furthermore, if you truly believe there is a right to privacy, then shouldn't I be allowed to keep my financial life completely private from the rotten government?

Another example: if I have a right to privacy, why is the government allowed to monitor which drugs my doctor recommends for me? You progressives literally support the having the rotten government get in between me and my doctor via the prescription drug system. How is that not a violation of my so-called right to privacy?

Getting back to Roe, this illusory "right" to privacy becomes even more ludicrous because it only applies to the first trimester, then, like magic, the woman's "right" to privacy vanishes into thin air.

Roe should be overturned, end of story.

The court rules that a fetus is not a person and therefore does not have the rights of one. They also said as a fetus approaches "viability" that changes. It has nothing to do with "magic".

In Roe v. Wade the Court said that a fetus is not a person but "potential life," and thus does not have constitutional rights of its own.

The Court also set up a framework in which the woman's right to abortion and the state's right to protect potential life shift: during the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman's privacy right is strongest and the state may not regulate abortion for any reason; during the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion only to protect the health of the woman; during the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion to promote its interest in the potential life of the fetus, except where abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...f-Roe-v-Wade-and-Other-Key-Abortion-Cases.pdf

 

[VanceMack]

That is just not true at all. The court ruled that a fetus is not a person.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-ac...f-Roe-v-Wade-and-Other-Key-Abortion-Cases.pdf

Its not at all shocking that you ignored the primary findings...the womans right to privacy which I cited, and jumped to the ruling on the unborn child. Of course you ignored the part where the court ruled the unborn child has rights to preservation in the third trimester.

 

[aociswundumho]

Give us an example of how the government accesses your finance

Really? The IRS can access anyone's bank account whenever it wants, without a warrant:

Can the IRS Get My Bank Account and Financial Information? The Short Answer: Yes.

To see IRS information about your financial accounts, order your wage and income transcript for the year from the IRS. Learn more from H&R Block.

www.hrblock.com

... Same with government control over treatment between you and your doctor...

Via the prescription drug system, where the government controls which drugs my doctor may prescribe and how much and how often. This is a private, personal matter that should be between me and my doctor.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I was reading this article about Amy Barrett:

Opinion | The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett So Dangerous (Published 2020)

Do we really want our rights to be determined by the understandings of centuries ago?

www.nytimes.com

From the above link:



Like it or not, he's correct. Roe is quintessential judicial activism. There is no "right to privacy". I don't mean there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, I mean there is no "right" to privacy period.

Pretty easy to see why. Suppose a woman undresses in her bedroom and walks around naked at night with the lights on and the shades up. A man taking a night walk ogles her naked body from the sidewalk. Is the man violating her "right" to privacy? Should he be punished? Of course not. There are an infinite number of hypothetical scenarios you could come up with where your privacy is invaded, but the invader should definitely not be punished.

Furthermore, if you truly believe there is a right to privacy, then shouldn't I be allowed to keep my financial life completely private from the rotten government?

Another example: if I have a right to privacy, why is the government allowed to monitor which drugs my doctor recommends for me? You progressives literally support the having the rotten government get in between me and my doctor via the prescription drug system. How is that not a violation of my so-called right to privacy?

Getting back to Roe, this illusory "right" to privacy becomes even more ludicrous because it only applies to the first trimester, then, like magic, the woman's "right" to privacy vanishes into thin air.

Roe should be overturned, end of story.

In fact there are civil offenses for what you describe that woman doing?
Democats just don't care. The court will not overturn Roe unless it's authorization is in opposition to the Constitution. So democrats have nothing to worry about if it is Constitutional. They have nothing to worry about if it's not murder? So why are they worried?

 

[Luce]

Yes, penumbras and emanations. Again, if there is a right to privacy, then it should certainly apply to my finances and to the drugs I put into my own body. Both are very personal, yet you as a progressive, have no problem with government access to my finances and government control over treatment between me and my doctor.

I'll ask you directly: Do you believe I have the right to privacy from government intrusion regarding personal matters? If this right to privacy only applies to contraception, and to a woman in her first trimester, then explain why.

If all I have to go on are your posts in this thread, you have no right to privacy at all, and anything you want to smoke, snort, ingest, or inject can be regulated or outlawed.

 

[iguanaman]

Its not at all shocking that you ignored the primary findings...the womans right to privacy which I cited, and jumped to the ruling on the unborn child. Of course you ignored the part where the court ruled the unborn child has rights to preservation in the third trimester.

The "primary finding" was that a fetus in the first trimester was not a person. That was key to their ruling. It is no surprise that you tried to omit it from memory. I ignored nothing.

 

[aociswundumho]

The court rules that a fetus is not a person and therefore does not have the rights of one.

It's not a person in the third trimester either, so there goes that argument.

If you disagree, explain the criteria you are using to determine whether a living thing has rights.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Its not at all shocking that you ignored the primary findings...the womans right to privacy which I cited, and jumped to the ruling on the unborn child. Of course you ignored the part where the court ruled the unborn child has rights to preservation in the third trimester.

It's a human life. The court also said In the Dred Scott case that Dred Scott, was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; So we know the SCOTUS has made some terrible mistakes. Roe is one.

 

[iguanaman]

In fact there are civil offenses for what you describe that woman doing?
Democats just don't care. The court will not overturn Roe unless it's authorization is in opposition to the Constitution. So democrats have nothing to worry about if it is Constitutional. They have nothing to worry about if it's not murder? So why are they worried?

So as long as the Constitution does not say that a fetus in the 1st trimester is a person with the rights of a person we are safe? I think there are justices who wish to legislate from the bench about that. Certainly Amy will claim personhood from the moment of conception and that leaves birth control in jeopardy as well. We are now in danger of legislating the existence of "souls".

 

[aociswundumho]

If all I have to go on are your posts in this thread, you have no right to privacy at all, and anything you want to smoke, snort, ingest, or inject can be regulated or outlawed.

No. There is no "right" to privacy, but there is certainly a right to property.

 

[VanceMack]

The "primary finding" was that a fetus in the first trimester was not a person. That was key to their ruling. It is no surprise that you tried to omit it from memory. I ignored nothing.

No...it wasnt. The primary finding was that women ahd the right to privacy.

 

[Lursa]

I was reading this article about Amy Barrett:

Opinion | The Philosophy That Makes Amy Coney Barrett So Dangerous (Published 2020)

Do we really want our rights to be determined by the understandings of centuries ago?

www.nytimes.com

From the above link:



Like it or not, he's correct. Roe is quintessential judicial activism. There is no "right to privacy". I don't mean there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, I mean there is no "right" to privacy period.

Pretty easy to see why. Suppose a woman undresses in her bedroom and walks around naked at night with the lights on and the shades up. A man taking a night walk ogles her naked body from the sidewalk. Is the man violating her "right" to privacy? Should he be punished? Of course not. There are an infinite number of hypothetical scenarios you could come up with where your privacy is invaded, but the invader should definitely not be punished.

Furthermore, if you truly believe there is a right to privacy, then shouldn't I be allowed to keep my financial life completely private from the rotten government?

Another example: if I have a right to privacy, why is the government allowed to monitor which drugs my doctor recommends for me? You progressives literally support the having the rotten government get in between me and my doctor via the prescription drug system. How is that not a violation of my so-called right to privacy?

Getting back to Roe, this illusory "right" to privacy becomes even more ludicrous because it only applies to the first trimester, then, like magic, the woman's "right" to privacy vanishes into thin air.

Roe should be overturned, end of story.

If they overturn a right to privacy in RvW....then it cant be upheld anywhere else. What would be the premise to ONLY disregard a right to privacy for pregnant women?

So...I doubt they're going to do that. But if you have legal justification for it, please explain it to me?

And since you posted this on a discussion forum...'end of story' is just silly. Of course it's debatable...let's see if you can do so.

 

[VanceMack]

It's a human life. The court also said In the Dred Scott case that Dred Scott, was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; So we know the SCOTUS has made some terrible mistakes. Roe is one.

The court ruled on the case before it. The courts have made bad decisions. Teh biggest problem with Roe V Wade is it is not definitive. The bigger problem is that Congress didnt set about to pass an Amendment to prevent the practice from future case law.

Abortion is not going to be banned. Ever.

 

[Luce]

No. There is no "right" to privacy, but there is certainly a right to property.

You might have missed this little-known clause:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and also this one

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You believe you should have rights, but you believe that women should have one less right than a corpse has. This is why nobody listens to libertarians.

 

[iguanaman]

No...it wasnt. The primary finding was that women ahd the right to privacy.

So putting abortion aside, you disagree that a woman and her doctor should be able to decide her own treatment without the State interfering?

 

[Lursa]

Yes, penumbras and emanations. Again, if there is a right to privacy, then it should certainly apply to my finances and to the drugs I put into my own body. Both are very personal, yet you as a progressive, have no problem with government access to my finances and government control over treatment between me and my doctor.

I'll ask you directly: Do you believe I have the right to privacy from government intrusion regarding personal matters? If this right to privacy only applies to contraception, and to a woman in her first trimester, then explain why.

What is the reason that abortion should be illegal (if that is your reason for seeing RvW overturned)?

Unless you have a good reason(s), there's no reason why women shouldnt be allowed elective abortions. The right to have an abortion is protected under the 9th Amendment. It's similar to how we have a right to have consensual sex, or how people have a right to have children. Not enumerated but still protected.

...inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights, it would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument that government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed.1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.

Amendment IX. Unenumerated Rights

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[iguanaman]

If they overturn a right to privacy in RvW....then it cant be upheld anywhere else. What would be the premise to ONLY disregard a right to privacy for pregnant women?

So...I doubt they're going to do that. But if you have legal justification for it, please explain it to me?

And since you posted this on a discussion forum...'end of story' is just silly. Of course it's debatable...let's see if you can do so.

I believe that Amy's Court will try to give a fetus "personhood" from conception meaning it has Constitutional rights . They will not overturn the right to privacy. But that is an even slipperier slope because it will affect contraception too.

 

[Lursa]

It's not a person in the third trimester either, so there goes that argument.

If you disagree, explain the criteria you are using to determine whether a living thing has rights.

It's not a 'person' until birth. And thus, has no rights. None, unless you can tell me what that authority says otherwise, one that the American people are obligated to follow? I'm using the Const. and US law based on that.

Here's some references:

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

14th Amendment:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[iguanaman]

It's not a person in the third trimester either, so there goes that argument.

If you disagree, explain the criteria you are using to determine whether a living thing has rights.

Again the court ruled that as viability approaches the fetus has more rights. You may disagree but that was their logic. The key to overturning Roe is bestowing personhood on the egg as soon as it is fertilized. That is a very slippery slope.

 

[Lursa]

It's a human life. The court also said In the Dred Scott case that Dred Scott, was not thereby entitled to his freedom; that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States; So we know the SCOTUS has made some terrible mistakes. Roe is one.

What authority that Americans are obligated to follow says that the unborn have a right to life?

 

[vegas giants]

Yes, penumbras and emanations. Again, if there is a right to privacy, then it should certainly apply to my finances and to the drugs I put into my own body. Both are very personal, yet you as a progressive, have no problem with government access to my finances and government control over treatment between me and my doctor.

I'll ask you directly: Do you believe I have the right to privacy from government intrusion regarding personal matters? If this right to privacy only applies to contraception, and to a woman in her first trimester, then explain why.

Yes you have a right to privacy from government intrusion. It is not a absolute right but you certainly have this constitutional right absent compelling interest