• 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!

Should the United States Supreme Court overturn the Roe vs Wade Decision of 1973?

Should the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs Wade?


  • Total voters
    87
Anyone with a 6th grade education knows it's a Homo sapiens. The only time pro-choice people end up getting into the semantics of 'human' is when pro-lifers try to pretend that a scientific classification of an organism demonstrates any value or legal significance.

There's no hypocrisy unless it's pro-life people who pretend that 'science' is some kind of authority on human social issues.
Do you think the right is completely honest about it?
Once the sperm mates with the egg it is a human. A zygot or fetus is simply a stage in human development. But that isn't a legal recognition. When the right claims legal status from conception they are wrong. Courts determine legal status, and some states award legal status by making abortion past a certain point unlawful. However, legal status is manmade. The right can strive to give legal status from conception if they want. If successful, then legal status from conception will be law. Biology doesn't change, but laws do.

Regardless, it is a human that is being killed. Somebody's offspring. If that offspring is unwanted, it's definitely better to abort it. That is doing society a favor. Considering how overcrowded our prisons are, maybe more abortions should have been done. Just avoid the hyprocrisy of pretending the fetus isn't human. Abortion is the killing of human beings for personal reasons. Nothing to be judged for. Being an atheist I can easily accept that we are nothing more than smart monkeys. Abortion is just Darwin at work. In nature most offspring get eaten by predators or starve, so the issue is taken care of naturally. Only the fittest survive. Humans aren't governed by those rules. Natural predators and starvation won't balance things out. So we have to take matters into our own hands, and make nature's decision ourselves.
 
Last edited:
Once the sperm mates with the egg it is a human. A zygot or fetus is simply a stage in human development. But that isn't a legal recognition. When the right claims legal status from conception they are wrong. Courts determine legal status, and some states award legal status by making abortion past a certain point unlawful.

However, it is a human that is being killed. Somebody's offspring. If that offspring is unwanted, it's definitely better to abort it. That is doing society a favor. Considering how overcrowded our prisons are, maybe more abortions should have been done. Just avoid the hyprocrisy of pretending the fetus isn't human. Abortion is the killing of human beings for good reasons. Nothing to be judged for. Being an atheist I can easily accept that we are nothing more than smart monkeys. Abortion is just Darwin at work. In nature most offspring get eaten by predators or starve, so the issue is taken care of naturally. Only the fittest survive. Humans aren't governed by those rules. Natural predators and starvation won't balance things out. So we have to take matters into our own hands, and make nature's decision ourselves.
I won't argue that it isn't a human being (its a very broad term) but it is not a baby and it is not Murder as the right often claims.
 
I won't argue that it isn't a human being (its a very broad term) but it is not a baby and it is not Murder as the right often claims.
You know the difference between a baby and a fetus? One is wanted and one is not.

Murder is the premeditated killing of an innocent human being.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Both you and Lursa believe it is a human. Abortion is the premedicated killing of a human. What I'm saying is that's OK. All murders aren't created equal. In this case it's legal, and should remain so. Just don't be hypocritical about it.
 
Once the sperm mates with the egg it is a human. A zygot or fetus is simply a stage in human development. But that isn't a legal recognition. When the right claims legal status from conception they are wrong. Courts determine legal status, and some states award legal status by making abortion past a certain point unlawful. However, legal status is manmade.

Thanks, I've written all that many times. (And so have millions of textbooks re: the human development.)

(I keep giving you 'yes's for answers and apparently, you dont like that so you keep challenging my positions. Go for it!)

The right can strive to give legal status from conception if they want. If successful, then legal status from conception will be law. Biology doesn't change, but laws do.

The right can strive. The right 'strived' in 1973 with a conservative bench and a 7-2 decision to consider elective abortion a right.

What legal arguments would you have them use to overturn the previous precedents and decision? And how will they do so without creating the basis for laws banning abortion that would violate so many of women's Const rights? Do our rights go out the window? With what justification? As posted many times previously:

Born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law...so which should be prioritized? Or if they can be, please explain how?

And here's my question clearly for the 'conservative' view to be explained:

"Why should women be forbidden from having elective abortions? What reasons do the 'conservatives' have? And then what legal basis would there be to violate women's Const rights in order to impose those laws on them?​
What part of those views and resulting laws would be from the 'conservative' political viewpoint?"​

However, it is a human that is being killed.

Again, why does scidentific category enter into the moral and legal issue? What's the reasoning that morally can be imposed on women that dont agree?

Somebody's offspring. If that offspring is unwanted, it's definitely better to abort it. That is doing society a favor. Considering how overcrowded our prisons are, maybe more abortions should have been done.

Valid viewpoint.

Just avoid the hyprocrisy of pretending the fetus isn't human.

Why are you repeating this? I already explained that there's no hypocrisy and a scientific category has no bearing on it.

"The only time pro-choice people end up getting into the semantics of 'human' is when pro-lifers try to pretend that a scientific classification of an organism demonstrates any value or legal significance.
There's no hypocrisy unless it's pro-life people who pretend that 'science' is some kind of authority on human social issues."​

Abortion is the killing of human beings for good reasons. Nothing to be judged for. Being an atheist I can easily accept that we are nothing more than smart monkeys. Abortion is just Darwin at work. In nature most offspring get eaten by predators or starve, so the issue is taken care of naturally. Only the fittest survive. Humans aren't governed by those rules. Natural predators and starvation won't balance things out. So we have to take matters into our own hands, and make nature's decision ourselves.
Valid viewpoint.
 
show me where it is an outrageous offense? What is outrageous is making an 11 year old carry a pregnancy to term....and then her dying from giving birth...that is outrageous.
I remember quite clearly Smurt Cat arguing for abortion.
 
You know the difference between a baby and a fetus? One is wanted and one is not.

Not according to the dictionary.

Fetus:an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kindspecifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

Baby:a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.

Murder is the premeditated killing of an innocent human being.
You got it close. It is the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being.

Since abortion is a constitutional right; it can't be unlawful, thus abortion is not murder.

I find it interestimg how you slipped "innocent" into your definition. Do you think it is lawful to murder people who aren't innocent?

Ultimately it appears to me that you are doing the same thing you claim the left does; mischaractizing definitions to elicit an emotional arguement.
 
Why should women be forbidden from having elective abortions? What reasons do the 'conservatives' have? And then what legal basis would there be to violate women's Const rights in order to impose those laws on them?

What part of those views and resulting laws would be from the 'conservative' political viewpoint?
The argument is that abortion is murder.
 
Why should women be forbidden from having elective abortions? What reasons do the 'conservatives' have? And then what legal basis would there be to violate women's Const rights in order to impose those laws on them?

What part of those views and resulting laws would be from the 'conservative' political viewpoint?

The argument is that abortion is murder.
We already discussed that that is a charge, not a legal argument.

But how about answering the actual questions in my post? I'm really interested in the 'conservative' views that you claim.
 
We already discussed that that is a charge, not a legal argument.

But how about answering the actual questions in my post? I'm really interested in the 'conservative' views that you claim.
Stop playing with words. Millions of people think abortion is murder. Abortion was legal in most states until Roe vs Wade. The Supreme Court does not mention abortion. Therefore it does not protect abortion. That is what matters.

The religious right is a Republican constituency that is important to Republican electoral victories. Nevertheless, the GOP has done nothing to advance the agenda of the religious right. It is time for the GOP to put some muscle into its mouth work.
 
The United States is a representative democracy. The electorate is sovereign.
Representive democracy = constitutional Republic.

Part of this definition is that the beliefs of the majority can not displace the rights of the minority as they are expressed in the constitution.

This is counter to your arguement in post 169..."A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected."
 
Representive democracy = constitutional Republic.

Part of this definition is that the beliefs of the majority can not displace the rights of the minority as they are expressed in the constitution.

This is counter to your arguement in post 169..."A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected."
Where does the Constitution say that one has the right to an abortion. I have read the Constitution on numerous occasions, looking for the word "abortion." I could not find it.
 
Where does the Constitution say that one has the right to an abortion. I have read the Constitution on numerous occasions, looking for the word "abortion." I could not find it.
Said the millionth forced birth poster in this forum.

Again...the right to abortion is located in the 9th amendment between presumption of innocence and the right to travel.

Please tell me you can figure it out from their.
 
My philosophy about the Constitution is that if the Constitution does not clearly say something, we should assume that the Constitution is silent on the matter, and leave the matter up to the voters. The majority of voters in quite a few states want to outlaw abortion.
Red states with the smallest populations for the exception of Florida and Texas. The overall polling if I recall correctly, and this was from last year, was somewhere in the 70% range for not overturning Roe.
 
Stop playing with words. Millions of people think abortion is murder. Abortion was legal in most states until Roe vs Wade. The Supreme Court does not mention abortion. Therefore it does not protect abortion. That is what matters.

The religious right is a Republican constituency that is important to Republican electoral victories. Nevertheless, the GOP has done nothing to advance the agenda of the religious right. It is time for the GOP to put some muscle into its mouth work.
We discussed this all this already. I refuted your first paragraph with sources. :rolleyes: Posts 52, 59, 70, 101 (101 is a good summary)

Millions of people were against civil rights, the ending of Jim Crow, and SSM. I provided the substance supporting how our Const is designed to avoid 'tyranny of the majority over the minority."

Why do you continue to avoid answering direct questions? You clearly stated a 'conservative' view and then have refused to clarify it. Why? Here it is again, and since it's factually not murder (you dont see any women being arrested, do you?), you also have to support WHY conservatives believe it's murder and not just shouting a bumper sticker.

Why should women be forbidden from having elective abortions? What reasons do the 'conservatives' have? And then what legal basis would there be to violate women's Const rights in order to impose those laws on them?​
What part of those views and resulting laws would be from the 'conservative' political viewpoint?​

There's nothing valid in bringing religious beliefs into the discussion. Legalized abortion allows every woman to follow her beliefs regarding having an abortion.
 
Last edited:
We discussed this all this already. I refuted your first paragraph with sources. :rolleyes: Posts 52, 59, 70, 101 (101 is a good summary)

Millions of people were against civil rights, the ending of Jim Crow, and SSM. I provided the substance supporting how our Const is designed to avoid 'tyranny of the majority over the minority."

Why do you continue to avoid answering direct questions? You clearly stated a 'conservative' view and then have refused to clarify it. Why? Here it is again, and since it's factually not murder (you dont see any women being arrested, do you?), you also have to support WHY conservatives believe it's murder and not just shouting a bumper sticker.

Why should women be forbidden from having elective abortions? What reasons do the 'conservatives' have? And then what legal basis would there be to violate women's Const rights in order to impose those laws on them?​
What part of those views and resulting laws would be from the 'conservative' political viewpoint?​

There's nothing valid in bringing religious beliefs into the discussion. Legalized abortion allows every woman to follow her beliefs regarding having an abortion.
Great post. Although I have no problem with bringing religious beliefs into it.

My religion is fine with abortion. I hope people like Smartcat don't tread on my religious rights by banning abortion.

That would violate my first amendment rights.
 
A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected.
Nah 😶
 
What legal arguments would you have them use to overturn the previous precedents and decision? And how will they do so without creating the basis for laws banning abortion that would violate so many of women's Const rights? Do our rights go out the window? With what justification? As posted many times previously:

Born and unborn cannot be treated equally under the law...so which should be prioritized? Or if they can be, please explain how?

And here's my question clearly for the 'conservative' view to be explained:

"Why should women be forbidden from having elective abortions? What reasons do the 'conservatives' have? And then what legal basis would there be to violate women's Const rights in order to impose those laws on them?What part of those views and resulting laws would be from the 'conservative' political viewpoint?"

Again, why does scidentific category enter into the moral and legal issue? What's the reasoning that morally can be imposed on women that dont agree?
The right can assert that the unborn, as a human, has a stronger claim to protection than the mother. They would have science, you, me, and several others here who recognize the unborn as human. Then it would simply be matter of assigning the unborn the priority. Under those circumstances, the Constitution would protect the unborn instead of the mother, a reversal of current law. As I said, biology doesn't change, but laws do. I would hope the SC wouldn't rule that way, but it is certainly possible. And the right has every right to pursue that goal. Courts reverse themselves regularly, depending on their political leanings. There is nothing "objective" about the law. Roe V Wade was decided on very weak Constitutional grounds. It was quite a stretch. Considering the makeup of the current court, it could very well be modified or even overturned altogether. What I expect to happen is it will be dismantled a little at a time, the way other rights are changed. Seldom is it one fell swoop.

You seem to have me confused with a conservative, but I am probably closer to libertarian. I oppose the death penalty because I doubt government can get it right all the time, and that should be the standard for the death penalty. However, I have no moral objection to the death penalty. And those groups who fight a legal battle to remove the death penalty have every right to do so.

I also own a few guns, but I respect the right in a democracy for the opposition to try and get them banned. Depending on the political makeup of the SC, gun rights could be protected, or "public safety" could become an overwhelming priority. It could go either way. But generally, the trend is to dismantle gun rights a little at a time also.

And so I will still maintain that abortion is killing a human. And yes, it is the legal killing of human beings. And I still maintain that it's good for society. To say it isn't killing a human is hypocrisy.
 
Separation of church and state, simple as that. Not everyone plays by god's rules, therefore we can't make god's rules the baseline.
 
The right can assert that the unborn, as a human, has a stronger claim to protection than the mother.
What is the legal foundation for that? Your explanation is about your opinion, not law. Even you say it would be a reversal, but not a legal basis for that. Women are already contributing members of society, 3/4 already have at least one child, they are the better investment for society. The unborn may not even survive to be born, or may be born severely defective. So 'protection' seems to be about 'feelings,' not law.

They would have science, you, me, and several others here who recognize the unborn as human. Then it would simply be matter of assigning the unborn the priority.

See above, what legal foundation? You make it sound like they'd pick choices out of a hat.

Under those circumstances, the Constitution would protect the unborn instead of the mother, a reversal of current law. As I said, biology doesn't change, but laws do. I would hope the SC wouldn't rule that way, but it is certainly possible. And the right has every right to pursue that goal.

Never said they didnt. And thus I asked about the conservative view. If you dont believe it, then please dont use their perspective in your discussion...since you said you dont really believe in it.

Courts reverse themselves regularly, depending on their political leanings. There is nothing "objective" about the law. Roe V Wade was decided on very weak Constitutional grounds. It was quite a stretch. Considering the makeup of the current court, it could very well be modified or even overturned altogether. What I expect to happen is it will be dismantled a little at a time, the way other rights are changed. Seldom is it one fell swoop.

It's based on at least 10 precedents and has stood for more than 40 years. Again, if you believe it can be overturned, there needs to be legal foundation, and justification for the removal of Const protections of women's rights.

What are they? What are some possible arguments?

And so I will still maintain that abortion is killing a human.

Everyone knows that. Grammar school text books.

And yes, it is the legal killing of human beings. And I still maintain that it's good for society.
Valid comments.

To say it isn't killing a human is hypocrisy.
Only the very ignorant or those playing semantic games say that it's not a Homo sapiens.
 
What is the legal foundation for that? Your explanation is about your opinion, not law. Even you say it would be a reversal, but not a legal basis for that. Women are already contributing members of society, 3/4 already have at least one child, they are the better investment for society. The unborn may not even survive to be born, or may be born severely defective. So 'protection' seems to be about 'feelings,' not law.
All of this discussion is opinion. The SC issues opinions. The law itself is opinions. The SC did not base their Roe decision on the idea that women are a better investment, or contributing members of society. In fact, that might be a poor arguement to make in front of the SC, as the opposition could assert that abortion prevents the unborn from making their contribution to society. All the SC needs to find is that the unborn are legally human and their protection is a priority. They don't have to go any further than that. As for precedent, decades before Roe abortion was largely prohibited, and a state issue to boot. The federal government didn't get into the abortion issue big time until Roe. So if the SC wanted to follow long, long standing precedent, they could just return Roe to the states, which even currently still make abortion law. Precedent could allow the SC to dump it completely back to the states. Be careful what you wish for.
 
All of this discussion is opinion. The SC issues opinions. The law itself is opinions. The SC did not base their Roe decision on the idea that women are a better investment, or contributing members of society. In fact, that might be a poor arguement to make in front of the SC, as the opposition could assert that abortion prevents the unborn from making their contribution to society. All the SC needs to find is that the unborn are legally human and their protection is a priority. They don't have to go any further than that.
Yes, SCOTUS opinions are based on legal bases, legal arguments. Your idea about greater protection for unborn than women has no foundation in law...unless you can link to something?

And I only brought up the value of women in society to demonstrate that your idea of 'protection' of the unborn becoming a priority was not legally based and then...not even logically based. There are times when SCOTUS does need to balances rights for the good of society tho. So it was not a legal argument, merely a rebuttal of your idea.

As for precedent, decades before Roe abortion was largely prohibited, and a state issue to boot.

That has nothing to do with 'precedents.' They are legal precedents, not opinions that just preceded something in time.

The federal government didn't get into the abortion issue big time until Roe. So if the SC wanted to follow long, long standing precedent,

This statement clearly shows you dont understand what a 'precedent' is.

they could just return Roe to the states, which even currently still make abortion law. Precedent could allow the SC to dump it completely back to the states. Be careful what you wish for.

See all the posts in this thread discussing the 9th and 10th Amendments. That's why it's not a state issue to 'ban' abortion. See post 101, that's a good summary.

It could send it back to the states but the states cannot violate federal laws, state laws cannot supersede the rights set forth in the Const. And many states would keep elective abortion legal and available as needed and there's no way for other states to keep women from getting one there.

And please, read the actual legal precedents that RvW is based on. @minnie616 do you have those handy?
 
@Waddy

Privacy granted by the Constitution: Justice Anthony Kennedy on Lawrence v Texas:
"The Casey decision (precedent) again confirmed that our laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows:
“ These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
 
Back
Top Bottom