• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 should be overturned.

Scrabaholic

Smarter than the avg bear
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
20,176
Reaction score
15,166
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yea, instead you want the government to do it.

If you want states to be allowed to ban abortion, you are wanting that, too.

The govt. should be OUT of it entirely. Abortion should be between a woman and her doctor.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
12,549
Reaction score
6,583
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Roe is a poorly reasoned decision and the right to privacy in a medical context that it purports to defend seems to only apply to abortion - it doesn't for example extend to doctor assisted suicide. That said it should not be overturned and it will not be overturned.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
12,549
Reaction score
6,583
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I was reading this article about Amy Barrett:


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.
You are wrong. The 3rd and 4th amendments at minimum protect privacy rights even if they don't use the word "privacy"

As to your first example things in "plain sight" are not subject to privacy violations. If she walks in front of her bay window naked she has no expectation of privacy.

For your second the government's interest in making sure you pay your taxes outweighs your privacy interest in your finances. Sucks but that's life.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,537
Reaction score
40,338
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Roe is a poorly reasoned decision and the right to privacy in a medical context that it purports to defend seems to only apply to abortion - it doesn't for example extend to doctor assisted suicide. That said it should not be overturned and it will not be overturned.
But IMO it should. That is also BS. It's a good parallel. IMO it's even worse...done within the proper guidelines any mentally competent adult should have that choice, with their Dr.

It's more of the same bullshit...since we cant 'know for sure' the reasons for (the abortion, the assisted suicide', we should err on the side of sanctimony and relics of religious sacred beliefs. Instead of creating the proper guidelines for the assisted suicide.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
12,549
Reaction score
6,583
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
But IMO it should. That is also BS. It's a good parallel. IMO it's even worse...done within the proper guidelines any mentally competent adult should have that choice, with their Dr.

It's more of the same bullshit...since we cant 'know for sure' the reasons for (the abortion, the assisted suicide', we should err on the side of sanctimony and relics of religious sacred beliefs. Instead of creating the proper guidelines for the assisted suicide.
We are in complete agreement.
 

screenwriter

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
263
Reaction score
37
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Not sure that makes sense...because it gives the woman the control over whether there's a kid or not. If they guy doesnt want to be a daddy, he can only be in control over that decision...and should be...by protecting himself. By abdicating that decision to the woman, a man cant really complain about her decision, can he?
So the old "birth control failure" doesn't count if it is the man who wants to "man up" and take responsibility for a baby he helped create? I knew a chick once who was screwing her boyfriend's best friend. She was making pin holes in his condoms in hopes of getting pregnant by him (the best friend). To him it would have been a simple birth control failure - he would have had no choice but to provide for the resulting child. He isn't allowed absolution because he was trying not to create offspring.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,537
Reaction score
40,338
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
So the old "birth control failure" doesn't count if it is the man who wants to "man up" and take responsibility for a baby he helped create? I knew a chick once who was screwing her boyfriend's best friend. She was making pin holes in his condoms in hopes of getting pregnant by him (the best friend). To him it would have been a simple birth control failure - he would have had no choice but to provide for the resulting child. He isn't allowed absolution because he was trying not to create offspring.
Sure it counts. Did he know that bc isnt 100% effective when he had sex? (Yes). Did he know that the woman had 100% decision over putting her body thru an unplanned pregnancy? (Yes).

I know of guys who put pin holes in their condoms so that their girlfriends wouldnt be able to go off to college (hopefully) and leave them because they got pregnant. And?
 

BayouBulldog

New member
Joined
Oct 28, 2020
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I was reading this article about Amy Barrett:


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.
Yes, Roe should be overturned so each state can make their own decisions regarding abortions. Of course my view is that abortion should be illegal no matter
which state one lives in.
 

vegas giants

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
77,544
Reaction score
10,812
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, Roe should be overturned so each state can make their own decisions regarding abortions. Of course my view is that abortion should be illegal no matter
which state one lives in.
That would be bad
 

Scrabaholic

Smarter than the avg bear
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
20,176
Reaction score
15,166
Location
Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yes, Roe should be overturned so each state can make their own decisions regarding abortions. Of course my view is that abortion should be illegal no matter
which state one lives in.

Another one w/o a uterus wanting to dictate to those of us w/ one what we can or cannot do with ours and it's contents...

What other legitimate medical procedure should be banned by govt?
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,537
Reaction score
40,338
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes, Roe should be overturned so each state can make their own decisions regarding abortions. Of course my view is that abortion should be illegal no matter
which state one lives in.
No matter what the states decide, they cannot enact laws that override federal law & the Const. And so you cannot violate a woman's Const rights to criminalize her having an abortion. It requires violating them to even discover her medical condition...pregnancy is not a crime. And the 4th Amendment protects a woman's bodily autonomy.
 

grip

☚ Not Sure ☛
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
24,129
Reaction score
9,157
Location
Fl
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know where you'll find all the 'right to lifers' after there's a severe problem with overpopulation, hunger, homelessness, etc? Hiding.
 

Vadinho

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
4,432
Reaction score
1,953
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I was reading this article about Amy Barrett:


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.
I look forward to future laws mandating periodic foreskin inspections for all males over the age of three. If you do not have a foreskin, you are exempt.
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
14,567
Reaction score
5,899
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
No matter what the states decide, they cannot enact laws that override federal law & the Const. And so you cannot violate a woman's Const rights to criminalize her having an abortion. It requires violating them to even discover her medical condition...pregnancy is not a crime. And the 4th Amendment protects a woman's bodily autonomy.
This is the status at this time with Roe v Wade being the law of the nation.

IF Roe is overturned by a very conservative Supreme Court and some states then put into effect laws they have already passed banning abortion, a new question must be answered: A woman, resident of a state that has banned abortion, goes to an abortion-provider in another state, will she be charged with a criminal act upon her return to her home? Would that not violate an American's right to equal protection across the nation?

Nine states have passed abortion bans
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Utah
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
12,549
Reaction score
6,583
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is the status at this time with Roe v Wade being the law of the nation.

IF Roe is overturned by a very conservative Supreme Court and some states then put into effect laws they have already passed banning abortion, a new question must be answered: A woman, resident of a state that has banned abortion, goes to an abortion-provider in another state, will she be charged with a criminal act upon her return to her home? Would that not violate an American's right to equal protection across the nation?

Nine states have passed abortion bans
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Utah
As far as I know as a general statement a state cannot criminalize behavior by its citizens that occurs outside its jurisdiction. The same does not apply to the federal government which considers its jurisdiction to be global.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
6,072
Reaction score
3,638
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hey progressives, the argument is in post #1. Feel free to attack it. If it's wrong, then quote the part you think is wrong and show why it's wrong, instead of filling the thread with dumb irrelevant crap.
Our crap is more interesting than your crap, more relevant, too
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
6,072
Reaction score
3,638
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is the status at this time with Roe v Wade being the law of the nation. IF Roe is overturned by a very conservative Supreme Court and some states then put into effect laws they have already passed banning abortion, a new question must be answered: A woman, resident of a state that has banned abortion, goes to an abortion-provider in another state, will she be charged with a criminal act upon her return to her home? Would that not violate an American's right to equal protection across the nation? Nine states have passed abortion bans. Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Utah
In the days before the 1960s some states that banned the sale of contraceptives had laws making it a crime to buy women's contraceptives in another state and use them in their home state. States will pass laws that make it a crime to go out of state for an abortion. However, they will be overturned. Even the SC we have now is not so stupid as to let laws like that stand. Surely they aren't
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
3,958
Reaction score
1,677
Yes, Roe should be overturned so each state can make their own decisions regarding abortions. Of course my view is that abortion should be illegal no matter
which state one lives in.
Righties may have the religious right on the Supreme Court overturn roe vs Wade but it will never stand. 75% of Americans think roe should stand as the law of the land. That majority will win in the end. All this will do is force the democrats to appoint more justices to the Supreme Court. Then with a liberal court they will overturn the overturning of roe vs wade
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,537
Reaction score
40,338
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
This is the status at this time with Roe v Wade being the law of the nation.

IF Roe is overturned by a very conservative Supreme Court and some states then put into effect laws they have already passed banning abortion, a new question must be answered: A woman, resident of a state that has banned abortion, goes to an abortion-provider in another state, will she be charged with a criminal act upon her return to her home? Would that not violate an American's right to equal protection across the nation?

Nine states have passed abortion bans
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Utah
ANd none of those bans has been enacted because they have been found unconstitutional. (the ones that have been adjudicated. Not all have been but have been challenged and not yet enacted. They are similar and wont be upheld)

They can ban the procedure but they cannot criminalize a woman having an abortion. It's not murder, because the Const does not recognize the unborn as persons. (see 14th A). They cant investigate a woman's reproductive status without probable cause (pregnancy isnt a crime), protected by 14th and 4th. Women also dont need to go to a Dr to confirm a pregnancy. What kind of laws would be required to stop all women at state borders, test their reproductive status, and then recheck again upon return? Would miscarriages be investigated? Just one aspect of the ridiculousness of criminalizing having an abortion.

A right to have an abortion is also covered under the 9th Amendment (used in RvW) and works much the same way that there doesnt need to be specific rights enumerated for adults to have consensual sex or for people to have children. SCOTUS would have to find a way to remove that right...there would have to be justification. Alot of it is already in RvW (justification why a woman HAS a right to elective abortion and choices in reproduction.) Not to mention that most of the RvW precedents are based on that.

The one question I have not been able to find an answer to, because it's used frequently in RvW precedent cases and in RvW...is what is the state's interests in the unborn? It's referred to as 'state's interest,' but no definition.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
133,260
Reaction score
40,618
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I was reading this article about Amy Barrett:


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.
Not really.
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
531
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I was reading this article about Amy Barrett:


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.
Your analogy completely lost me. If making the decision to carry a pregnancy to full and complete term should remain a private right then how if you abolish Roe do you think any woman will have full privacy rights in regards to reproduction?

As for reproduction I argue it inherently a medical issue not a political issue. It has become a political issue because specific people feel their religious values are so correct they must use the courts to impose their religious values on others in regards to reproduction.

In law giving people the right to selectively impose their views on others creates inconsistent, incoherent law. For laws to be "fair" and make sense, they must be logical, objective, and most importantly neutral in moral and religious judgement.

I believe the decision as to reproduction is a private confidential matter between a woman and her physician. I believe removing Roe would prevent such decisions and allow third parties to intervene in that private confidential matter and impose their own views which inherently is illogical in that the people seeking to impose their views are dealing with someone else's body not their own. and they do it on their own subjective constructs not objectively based decisions.
 
Last edited:

aociswundumho

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
4,475
Reaction score
1,747
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As for reproduction I argue it inherently a medical issue not a political issue. It has become a political issue because specific people feel their religious values are so correct they must use the courts to impose their religious values on others in regards to reproduction.
No, it became a political issue because doctors are licensed, which gives the rotten government control over how doctors treat their patients.

I believe the decision as to reproduction is a private confidential matter between a woman and her physician. I believe removing Roe would prevent such decisions and allow third parties to intervene in that private confidential matter and impose their own views which inherently is illogical in that the people seeking to impose their views are dealing with someone else's body not their own. and they do it on their own subjective constructs not objectively based decisions.
The same argument applies to drug use. Do you support eliminating the prescription drug system? Or should the state have control over which drugs I may put into my own body?
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,537
Reaction score
40,338
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
No, it became a political issue because doctors are licensed, which gives the rotten government control over how doctors treat their patients.
So then abortions would be ok if the Drs were certified by a private professional organization and not the state? They would have qualifications and then be licensed by a professional organization instead?

The same argument applies to drug use. Do you support eliminating the prescription drug system? Or should the state have control over which drugs I may put into my own body?
Sure, I dont mind that at all. They could leave it up to the producers of the drugs...that would be their right, similar to a property right. And they could choose to work with Drs or not. Or make their own rules per the known safety/side effects of the drug and make them available for certain ailments/uses. Drs could then send their patients directly to the pharma co. for purchase.

And then the American people would be put more at risk and have to take more responsibility in researching the drugs they take (that are available) and discussing with their Drs. I am all for finding ways to make Americans more responsible for their actions and decisions. (Dont bother diverting to the responsibilities re: abortion, I'll just post the list again that shows it can be a very responsible decision).
 

Mika-El

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
1,483
Reaction score
531
Location
quantum paradox
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, it became a political issue because doctors are licensed, which gives the rotten government control over how doctors treat their patients.



The same argument applies to drug use. Do you support eliminating the prescription drug system? Or should the state have control over which drugs I may put into my own body?
I suppose one could argue the American Medical Association most certainly has its own internal politics. I defer to physicians on that but again I don't understand how you have the AMA and federal or state governments and the AMA as being one and the same. I am not sure how doctors gave the government control over themselves anymore than you or I do when it comes to criminal laws state or federal. I think your understanding of the AMA being a branch of government is not accurate.

You certainly have an interesting perspective. I mean we both have concerns about civil liberties from the sounds of it but you lose me on how you blame this on licensing. Doctors are licensed to assure they have a certain level of competence to protect the public. They volunteer to be self regulated for that reason. I am not sure there are too many genuine doctors out there who would expect to private without a license especially the ones cleaning up the mess caused by unlicensed health providers.

Surely you are aware physicians are concerned that if "abortion" is made illegal it exposes people to back door clinics.
 
Top Bottom