Yea, instead you want the government to do it.
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.
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.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.
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?
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).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.
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 matterI 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.
That would be badYes, 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.
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.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.
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.
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
Our crap is more interesting than your crap, more relevant, tooHey 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.
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
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.
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)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
Not really.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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it became a political issue because doctors are licensed, which gives the rotten government control over how doctors treat their patients.
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.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?
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?