Roe should be overturned.

[aociswundumho]

Again the court ruled that as viability approaches the fetus has more rights.

The same court once ruled black people were the legitimate property of white people.

I'm saying Roe is wrong, and I gave the reasons why.

 

[vegas giants]

The same court once ruled black people were the legitimate property of white people.

I'm saying Roe is wrong, and I gave the reasons why.

No one denies a constitutional right to privacy

 

[aociswundumho]

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

Roe should be overturned because it's wrong. I never said abortion should be illegal.

 

[iguanaman]

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

Amy would say God is the authority and she is his messenger. There is no other way to look at it. We are being controlled by a space fairy.

 

[vegas giants]

Roe should be overturned because it's wrong. I never said abortion should be illegal.

Depending on the ruling overturning roe could make all abortions illegal

 

[iguanaman]

The same court once ruled black people were the legitimate property of white people.

I'm saying Roe is wrong, and I gave the reasons why.

And they soon will have a majority that believe God told them that a fetus is a human from conception with al the rights of a person. They will not mess with what you are complaining about. Even they will not deny that everyone has the right to treatment that is between them and their doctor barring any other interests.

 

[aociswundumho]

You might have missed this little-known clause:

The fourth amendment exists because of the vile Writs of Assistance, which were a clear property rights violation. If someone barges into your home or business and starts going through your things, it's a property rights violation, not merely an invasion of privacy.

 

[Luce]

The fourth amendment exists because of the vile Writs of Assistance, which were a clear property rights violation. If someone barges into your home or business and starts going through your things, it's a property rights violation, not merely an invasion of privacy.

Life is easy when you just make things up.

 

[Lursa]

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.

Some states have tried that. It's very difficult and creates way more problems than it solves. It places the unborn at an equal legal status to the woman...and it's not possible to treat them equally under the law.

So then one process the court would need to use before deciding...because it would be Congress that would have to create a whole new amendment for fetal personhood....then SCOTUS would rule on a challenge case if it would be upheld...is the Balancing Rights principle. I've posted links before. It's key point is that they would decide on what's in the best interests of society.

IMO, as the woman is a contributing member of society, and that she and society would be harmed by her being relegated to a 2nd class citizen again, they would not recognize the unborn as persons. The unborn may miscarry, (2/3ds do) and may be born seriously defective. It is only 'potential life,' as they've already stated. The woman is actualized, part of society.

And bottom line, there are no negative effects on society from abortion. I ask frequently, no one ever has come up with any.

 

[Luce]

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.

This is of course the case. It allows women to be made less than a person, legally.

Never forget that the religious right has more in common with the Iranian imams than they have with us.

 

[Lursa]

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.

Incorrect. The court never ruled the unborn has any rights.

It gave states the right to choose to restrict abortion around 24 weeks "based on states' interest." Some states did, some didnt.

 

[aociswundumho]

If they overturn a right to privacy in RvW....then it cant be upheld anywhere else.

There is no right to privacy.

What would be the premise to ONLY disregard a right to privacy for pregnant women?

For anything to be a right, it has to apply to everyone, not just pregnant women.

 

[Lursa]

The fourth amendment exists because of the vile Writs of Assistance, which were a clear property rights violation. If someone barges into your home or business and starts going through your things, it's a property rights violation, not merely an invasion of privacy.

What part of 'your person' is property?

And if that's the case, we're all property and the unborn is the woman's property. Hers to dispose of as she chooses.

 

[vegas giants]

There is no right to privacy. It applies to everyone



For anything to be a right, it has to apply to everyone, not just pregnant women.

There is a right to.privacy.


That much is settled

 

[aociswundumho]

Life is easy when you just make things up.

History and Scope of the Amendment

 

[Lursa]

There is no right to privacy.

I can work with your premise, incorrect as it is.

For anything to be a right, it has to apply to everyone, not just pregnant women.

Exactly and you avoided the main point here...a great deal of our society is protected by the right you say doesnt exist. It would disrupt our society to throw it out.

Like the example you have been give, re: Griswold and birth control. Like your employer looking at your medical records before hiring you. It goes on and on and on.

So I ask, again, what would be the justification for the court to find, to erase all those protections?

 

[Lursa]

It was the issue upon which the Supreme Court based Roe and Griswold.

It was one, the primary one, but they also mentioned the 9th.

 

[CaughtInThe]

there's another way to look at this. if Republicans/Conservatives overturn Roe then young women send them to the political desert for generations.

is that really such a bad thing?

 

[Lursa]

Roe should be overturned because it's wrong. I never said abortion should be illegal.

Now you are avoiding the question.

If it works for society (no harm done), why should it be overturned? If it doesnt work for society...how so?

There's no way I believe you if you claim that it should be overturned because of a legal definition that has no negative effect.

So...at least be honest...why should it be overturned?

 

[Lursa]

Amy would say God is the authority and she is his messenger. There is no other way to look at it. We are being controlled by a space fairy.

She cannot use that in her decision. She has to use the legal resources, the Const, and precedents that we have.

 

[aociswundumho]

Exactly and you avoided the main point here...a great deal of our society is protected by the right you say doesnt exist.

No, it isn't. Civilization exists as we know it because of property rights.

Like the example you have been give, re: Griswold and birth control.
Like your employer looking at your medical records before hiring you. It goes on and on and on.

Except those two examples are completely different. Birth control pills and condoms are property.

How did the employer in the second example obtain your medical records?

 

[iguanaman]

there's another way to look at this. if Republicans/Conservatives overturn Roe then young women send them to the political desert for generations.

is that really such a bad thing?

I am more worried about the 1000's of women that will seek illegal abortions since the history and data from countries that ban abortion shows they have higher numbers than where it is safe and legal. Women are not sheep and they will not give up the right to control when they have children. That is completely clear.

 

[aociswundumho]

Now you are avoiding the question.

No, I answered your question - twice. The first time in post #1.

 

[Lursa]

No, it isn't. Civilization exists as we know it because of property rights.

Well we'll be examining that further. I'll wait to see how you explain that "security of the person" then does NOT treat people as property...otherwise what does it mean? Can the govt take one of your kidneys and give it to someone else?

Except those two examples are completely different. Birth control pills and condoms are property.

How did the employer in the second example obtain your medical records?

Well, at this point, from what you seem to have been implying, the unborn is the property of the woman. If people are property....

You're going to have to explain how the govt does not have a right to take your kidneys, or even kill you. (Without due process)

 

[Eriech]

Should have been codified by the legislature long ago.