The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

[Jredbaron96]

Yes it was. You were trying to assert that there is a clear "right to privacy" in the Constitution which allows someone to do what they wish (with a developing life) simply because it is a "private" act.

The right to privacy grew out of the idea that Americans are a "free people"

While it is true this issue has come up from time to time, the very first case to actually establish this was Roe v. Wade.

No it wasn't. The right to privacy was invoked in SCOTUS decades prior to Roe.

 

[AGENT J]

Yes it is. It's just legal homicide.

FACTS
abortion =/= homicide

 

[Fishking]

No it isn't.

You may feel that way, but it doesn't make it true.

Sorry, but your denials mean nothing to reality. Homicide is when one human being kills another. Every single abortion factually does that.

 

[Fishking]

FACTS
abortion =/= homicide

Since you're so similar to Trump, I'm going to do what I keep suggesting the left does to reduce his impact, and ignore you while you flaccidly flail about screaming and begging for attention. Have fun with the void.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The right to privacy grew out of the idea that Americans are a "free people"

Actually, it is a basic assumption of most people regardless. No one thinks other people should be "nosing" into their personal, private lives/business.

But aside from the 5th Amendment protections against illegal searches and seizures, and perhaps the vague 10th Amendments "powers reserved by the people," it was just a presumption of natural rights.

Still often violated by authority and common citizens regardless.

No it wasn't. The right to privacy was invoked in SCOTUS decades prior to Roe.

As I said, it was mentioned in several SCOTUS cases (I believe first in a dissent by Justice Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)), but never declared outright as a majority determination until Roe. That part I agree with BTW.

Regardless, I reiterate. A right to privacy does not grant a right to do harm just because it is done "privately."

 

[AGENT J]

Since you're so similar to Trump, I'm going to do what I keep suggesting the left does to reduce his impact, and ignore you while you flaccidly flail about screaming and begging for attention. Have fun with the void.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA thats what i thought!!!!!!

Translation: your retraded false claim got the shit kicked out of it and now you make a deflection and run away post because there's nothing you can do to change the fact your moronic failed claim got exposed for the factually wrong stupidity it was.

sooooooooooooo here we are in the same spot

FACTS
abortion =/= homicide

let me know when you or ANYBODY can prove differently, you wont cause you cant and it makes my day, happy trials!

 

[AGENT J]

Sorry, but your denials mean nothing to reality. Homicide is when one human being kills another. Every single abortion factually does that.

more retarded factually wrong claims!!! oh my god this is hilarious could a post look any more stupid?


FACTS
abortion =/= homicide

 

[Jredbaron96]

Sorry, but your denials mean nothing to reality. Homicide is when one human being kills another. Every single abortion factually does that.

A fetus isn't a human being.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Actually, it is a basic assumption of most people regardless. No one thinks other people should be "nosing" into their personal, private lives/business.

You'll find that in some cultures, that isn't true.

A right to privacy does not grant a right to do harm just because it is done "privately."

You have a right to self defense, do you not?

 

[Cordelier]

I agree. So why would this response have anything to do with what I have posted?

I thought it was obvious... when the Court decided Roe, it wasn't writing laws - it was passing on the constitutional validity of the Texas law that made abortion illegal.

 

[The Mark]

The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

A new book argues that the Constitution is best understood as a document calling for the unashamed struggle for equality.

www.thenation.com

This is one of those articles you don't need to read much of to get a sense of what it's about. So with that in mind, I'll only speak to the opening line:



... and , of course, the first case cited as an example of the pressure placed by the "conservative movement thumb" was Dobbs v Jackson.

This argument is, in a word, ridiculous. Let us understand how Dobbs is fundamentally different than Roe.

Roe decided the matter. It imposed a legal standard for abortion rights on all 50 states: no state could prohibit abortion before the third trimester, even if there was overwhelming political support for a different standard in any (or all) of those states.

Had the Dobbs majority taken the same approach as the Roe majority, i.e. had Dobbs imposed the will of the "conservative movement" as this author contends, then the decision would have moved Roe's viability standard to some earlier stage of development, maybe week 8, maybe conception. But Dobbs didn't do that. Dobbs literally sets no standard and returns the matter entirely to the electorate.

It is far more accurate to say that Roe was the political will of the "liberal movement." Dobbs, conversely, is apolitical. It does not attempt to decide the matter and instead leaves it to voters.

It is entirely accurate to state that conservatives planned and organized to get most of the current SCOTUS appointed.
The difference of opinion is over whether their motives for doing so are just and right.

I think they aren't.
But that's just my opinion.

 

[eohrnberger]

This just yet another concocted and contorted reasoning gymnastics to justify the left's wanting SCOTUS to do their ideological bidding irrespective of the constitution.

How hum. Must be a day who's name ends in a 'y'.

Doesn't speak very highly of the left's concern about denigrating US institutions.

 

[Cordelier]

Yes it was. You were trying to assert that there is a clear "right to privacy" in the Constitution which allows someone to do what they wish (with a developing life) simply because it is a "private" act.

Now people seek to use the 14th Amendment as a foundation for this and assert there are many cases which state this right to privacy.

While it is true this issue has come up from time to time, the very first case to actually establish this was Roe v. Wade. While I don't agree with how Roe used this idea to support abortion as protected by the Constitution, I did agree that people have a right to privacy, as we are protected from illegal searches and seizures and people should feel secure in their persons and homes.

However, like I stated above, such a right does not grant one the ability to commit crimes or other harms simply because it is done "in private."

People ought to have a right to domain over their own bodies. Why don't you feel such an unenumerated right exists under the 9th Amendment, consistent with Justice Goldberg's concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut?

 

[Fishking]

A fetus isn't a human being.

It is, in fact, a human being.

Let's figure this out. Is the fetus alive or dead?

 

[Cordelier]

It is, in fact, a human being.

Let's figure this out. Is the fetus alive or dead?

A proto human being is, by definition, not yet a human being.

 

[Fishking]

This just yet another concocted and contorted reasoning gymnastics to justify the left's wanting SCOTUS to do their ideological bidding irrespective of the constitution.

How hum. Must be a day who's name ends in a 'y'.

Doesn't speak very highly of the left's concern about denigrating US institutions.

Isn't it interesting that the court, for once, isn't going the left's way and they instantly want to throw it out.

 

[Fishking]

A proto human being is, by definition, not yet a human being.

Shhhh....the question wasn't posed to you and you avoided it anyways.

 

[eohrnberger]

Isn't it interesting that the court, for once, isn't going the left's way and they instantly want to throw it out.

It's a recurring behavior pattern for the left.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It is, in fact, a human being.

No. It is human. Being implies more than that. A fertilized embryo is not the same thing as a five year old.

 

[Fishking]

No. It is human. Being implies more than that. A fertilized embryo is not the same thing as a five year old.

Lol....you ****ing ran from a simple question. I have your admission I'm right.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Lol....you ****ing ran from a simple question. I have your admission I'm right.

I'm going to take that as a sign you don't have a proper response to what I've said. Maybe next time.

 

[Fishking]

I'm going to take that as a sign you don't have a proper response to what I've said. Maybe next time.

Sorry, you're done. There is no pathetic attempt at clawing back to you avoiding what I wrote.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Sorry, you're done. There is no pathetic attempt at clawing back to you avoiding what I wrote.

Maybe if you get more angry you'll do better.

 

[Fishking]

Maybe if you get more angry you'll do better.

Maybe if your posts had integrity I wouldn't have expose you.

 

[Captain Adverse]

People ought to have a right to domain over their own bodies. Why don't you feel such an unenumerated right exists under the 9th Amendment, consistent with Justice Goldberg's concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut?

In the case of abortion, it is more than just the idea of such "domain." It strikes at the very nature of human existence.

We all started this way, and so many people completely ignore this fact, parsing when the "thing" is and is not "human" enough to be protected.

I am not one who forbids abortion per se, I am one who wishes it limited to the first trimester and after that ONLY if the develping child could not survive, OR the mother would suffer death or serious physical harm by carrying to term.

But I do NOT believe abortion is an absolute right up to and until the "cord is cut."

Meanwhile, I also believe it is something that the LEGISLATURES of each State should decide.

Why would you not agree, do you not believe in our "Democracy?"