• 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

RealityNow

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
9,157
Reaction score
2,597
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is EXACTLY the back side of their want to dictate over women, and then turn an attack her from every angle they can conjure up.
  • Many of these types are people (male and female) who will "bang" any woman they can get to lay on her back..... and walk away feeling like "the conqueror" and act like they don't know her if she is impregnated or claim she was sexually abused.
  • SOME of these people came from a legacy of ancestry who "encroached, raped and abused slave women, left them with babies" and maybe even from some of them came from slave owner ancestry who turned the baby they made into a slave.
If they are so concerned, why are they not doing thing to help single parents, regardless of how she became a single parent? Most Churches don't even think to help single parents women or single parent men. Likely, in some situations they only gossip maliciously about the person being a single parent.

It's something really twisted and out right wrong in some white peoples minds, they simply can't mind their own business and stop trying to control, manipulate and dictate over other people.

Every woman has her own struggles in life, she don't need a bunch of people piling on her with a bunch of their madness of wanting to control, manipulate, judge and dictate over her.
 

TheParser

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
7,559
Reaction score
2,856
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
No. No. No.

Every woman who wants an abortion should be able to get one and the government should pay the cost.

Thanks to that Court decision, there are fewer robbers, sucker punchers, looters, rapists, & murderers stalking our mean streets today.
 

j brown's body

A hail fellow well met
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
17,867
Reaction score
9,934
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Overturning Roe won't end abortions. Women of means will always be able to travel to states where it is legal to get them. Women not of means will take their chances on illegal ones.
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
51,765
Reaction score
18,970
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'd never shoot holes in abortion. It's a woman's right to kill her offspring. Some would even call it murder. But it is legal, and rightfully so.
If it is legal, it can't be murder. Murder means unlawful killing of a person.
 

roguenuke

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
51,765
Reaction score
18,970
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected.
And there are many, a majority throughout the US that does not. But even better the US Constitution gives rights regarding a person's body to that person, not to the states or the conservatives of those states.
 

SmartCat

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
889
Location
North East USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
I am not a lawyer. If you are present a legal argument in favor of abortion rights. I am sure an anti abortion lawyer could compose a legal argument as good as you. I do not care about what you consider to be a legal argument. I want the voters to decide this issue.
 

SmartCat

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
889
Location
North East USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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."
I have read the Constitution many times. If it says that it opposes the "tyranny of the majority over the minority" I missed it. Help me out. Quote the words "tyranny of the majority" in the Constitution.

The results of the civil rights legislation should have disappointed its advocates. I used to be an advocate myself. I am disappointed with the black response. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law and since the War on Poverty was declared, black rates of crime and illegitimacy have risen. Black academic performance has improved little, despite expensive government spending programs like Head Start and No Child Left Behind. This substantiates the arguments of those who defended Jim Crow legislation.
 

SmartCat

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
889
Location
North East USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Smurt cat is probably lying here too. Hes very pro abortion for certain people.
If you quote me, quote me accurately.

I am not lying about my support for replacing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families with free abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. A single government financed abortion can save a small fortune in welfare expense, educational expense, criminal justice expense, and crimes not committed. I am not pro life. I am an enthusiastic for capital punishment. I favor the gallows, using the short drop method.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
83,392
Reaction score
46,286
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Overturning Roe won't end abortions. Women of means will always be able to travel to states where it is legal to get them. Women not of means will take their chances on illegal ones.
Back in 2019 when there was a 'new trend' in banning abortions in the red states, a couple of blue states said that they'd start funding an 'underground railroad' for women that needed it. There would likely be a lot of private donations...PP gets a huge amount and that could be funneled from PP in those red states to the programs.

And it wouldnt have to be underground either.
 
Last edited:

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
83,392
Reaction score
46,286
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not a lawyer. If you are present a legal argument in favor of abortion rights. I am sure an anti abortion lawyer could compose a legal argument as good as you. I do not care about what you consider to be a legal argument. I want the voters to decide this issue.
And yet you are positive RvW can be overturned.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I havent had any problem finding resources for info on the Internet or other media.

And you also dont understand why the voters cant decide this issue, cannot ban women having an abortion, which is odd, it's something kids learn...or should be...in civics classes in school. 🤷
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
83,392
Reaction score
46,286
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I have read the Constitution many times. If it says that it opposes the "tyranny of the majority over the minority" I missed it. Help me out. Quote the words "tyranny of the majority" in the Constitution.

Where did I say it was in the Const? And I included a sourced quote TO where it originated early in the thread. Why are you pretending I didnt?

The results of the civil rights legislation should have disappointed its advocates. I used to be an advocate myself. I am disappointed with the black response. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law and since the War on Poverty was declared, black rates of crime and illegitimacy have risen. Black academic performance has improved little, despite expensive government spending programs like Head Start and No Child Left Behind. This substantiates the arguments of those who defended Jim Crow legislation.
TL;dr Esp. since you cant bother to directly answer my questions and even pretend not to have seen my responses.
 

SmartCat

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
889
Location
North East USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And yet you are positive RvW can be overturned.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I havent had any problem finding resources for info on the Internet or other media.

And you also dont understand why the voters cant decide this issue, cannot ban women having an abortion, which is odd, it's something kids learn...or should be...in civics classes in school. 🤷
Six Republican Supreme Court Justices can do anything they want. I want them to overturn Roe in order to keep a long overdue promise made to the religious right.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
83,392
Reaction score
46,286
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Six Republican Supreme Court Justices can do anything they want. I want them to overturn Roe in order to keep a long overdue promise made to the religious right.
What a facile, empty comment. No, they cant.

And screw the religious right...what "right" do they have to impose their will on women that dont believe the same? That's been interpreted by the bench clearly for centuries now...they dont.

Care to answer the bold?
 

SmartCat

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
889
Location
North East USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And yet you are positive RvW can be overturned.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I havent had any problem finding resources for info on the Internet or other media.

And you also dont understand why the voters cant decide this issue, cannot ban women having an abortion, which is odd, it's something kids learn...or should be...in civics classes in school. 🤷
Six Republican Supreme Court Justices can do anything they want. I want them to overturn Roe in order to keep a long overdue promise made to the religious right.
 

Attachments

  • TedCruz.jpg
    TedCruz.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 5
  • TedCruz.jpg
    TedCruz.jpg
    71.9 KB · Views: 5
  • tedCruz 2.jpg
    tedCruz 2.jpg
    83.3 KB · Views: 5

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
83,392
Reaction score
46,286
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Six Republican Supreme Court Justices can do anything they want. I want them to overturn Roe in order to keep a long overdue promise made to the religious right.
No, they cant.

And screw the religious right...what "right" do they have to impose their will on women that dont believe the same? That's been interpreted by the bench clearly for centuries now...they dont.

Care to answer the bold? No? Why not?

It seems you've been unable support your own OP with anything besides baseless nonsense so far. You demonstrate no knowledge at all of the legal aspects of the issue or the Constitution :rolleyes: and havent shown the ability to learn more as the thread progressed, lol. Now you make a personal complaint about religious belief...
 

j brown's body

A hail fellow well met
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
17,867
Reaction score
9,934
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I have read the Constitution many times. If it says that it opposes the "tyranny of the majority over the minority" I missed it. Help me out. Quote the words "tyranny of the majority" in the Constitution.

The results of the civil rights legislation should have disappointed its advocates. I used to be an advocate myself. I am disappointed with the black response. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed into law and since the War on Poverty was declared, black rates of crime and illegitimacy have risen. Black academic performance has improved little, despite expensive government spending programs like Head Start and No Child Left Behind. This substantiates the arguments of those who defended Jim Crow legislation.

Just goes to show the law can't change minds.
 

j brown's body

A hail fellow well met
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
17,867
Reaction score
9,934
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected.

You sure would have fit in in the South during slavery days.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
83,392
Reaction score
46,286
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
A very large majority in many conservative states want women to be forbidden from having abortions. I think those majorities should be respected.
How about this one? A very large majority in many conservative states want to put restrictions (not ban) on African Americans having kids.

Should that majority be 'respected?'
 

SmartCat

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2015
Messages
3,953
Reaction score
889
Location
North East USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
No, they cant.

And screw the religious right...what "right" do they have to impose their will on women that dont believe the same? That's been interpreted by the bench clearly for centuries now...they dont.

Care to answer the bold? No? Why not?

It seems you've been unable support your own OP with anything besides baseless nonsense so far. You demonstrate no knowledge at all of the legal aspects of the issue or the Constitution :rolleyes: and havent shown the ability to learn more as the thread progressed, lol. Now you make a personal complaint about religious belief...
They have the right to vote. They chose to vote to prevent women from committing a crime they consider to be nearly as evil as infanticide.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
83,392
Reaction score
46,286
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
They have the right to vote. They chose to vote to prevent women from committing a crime they consider to be nearly as evil as infanticide.
They have the right to vote 🤷 That's not the discussion.

You referred to upholding a 'promise' to them...by SCOTUS. That would be illegal...to 'promise' (you never explained that) and to make any decision based on some groups' religious beliefs.

And thus far, SCOTUS didnt vote to prevent abortion at all.
 

vesper

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
23,500
Reaction score
19,837
Location
Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Mississippi Is Trying To Get The Supreme Court To Reverse Roe, NPR​

July 23, 202112:35 PM ET

But this week, the state reframed its argument, abandoning its earlier and narrower attack, to take direct aim at Roe and its holding that women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus is able to survive outside the womb.

The Supreme Court may be about to honor a long ignored promise to the religious right to overturn Roe vs Wade. Since 1980 presidential platforms of the the Republican Party have pledged to overturn the Roe decision, but nothing has been done. In 1980 Jerry Falwell convinced most Christian conservatives that they should abandon the most sincerely Christian president the United States has probably ever had to vote for Ronald Reagan. The election of 1980 was close enough that the support of the Moral Majority probably elected Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, when anti abortion groups demonstrated in Washington, DC President Reagan did not speak before the groups. He did not invite the leaders to meet him in the White House.

This is an issue the Republican Donor Class would like to avoid. I am not sure how they can this time. Six of the Supreme Court Justices are Republicans. Since 1980 Evangelicals have been a constituency that has been important to Republican electoral victories. For most Evangelical Republicans outlawing abortion is the single most important issue. If the GOP disappoints them this time, I predict a large percentage of them will stop voting Republican.
There are several cases that have already made it to the Supreme court and the court refused to hear the cases.. But when the right case comes along, Roe v Wade will likely be overturned returning the issue of abortion to the states. It will then be determined by the voters on which way they will go.
 

Waddy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
8,504
Reaction score
2,418
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.



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



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



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?
Here's some reading you should do, maybe before you dictate to others.
So it seems there is no way to defend the pro-life position. Some people here are incredulous that there could even be a pro-life position. Though I support abortion, even encourage it, there is an arguement to be made that Roe was a bad decision..All depends on how you look at it But I'm no lawyer. I know of one who was. And he wrote a dissent on Roe. Maybe he can explain the pro-life position with some authority. After all, he was a SC justice.
And why might this be important right now? There is a major abortion case headed to the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, court file 19-1392, which was filed with the court June 15, 2020. Thomas E. Dobbs is the state health officer of the Mississippi Department of Health.....When the members of the high court voted to accept the case May 17, 2021, no justices indicated they disagreed. The oral argument in the appeal has not yet been scheduled. Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, hailed the court’s decision to accept the appeal, saying at the time that a review of the nation’s abortion laws was “long past due.”
So what did Justice Rhenquist say about Roe?
While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent.
His first objection is that the plaintiff had no standing; this alone might be grounds for a new look at the issue.

END OF PART 1; read on
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom