• 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!

The One & Only Way To Reduce/Stop Abortions

weaver2 said:
Have you ever seriously considered that abortion is not execution and that abortion may not only be legal but also more moral and/or humane than bringing a child into the world unwanted and uncared for?
Click to expand...

No...
 
minnie616 said:
During the colonial days abortions before quickening ( about 4 to 5 months when a woman can feel the unborns kicking or movements ) were legal.

The first laws restricting abortions were actually anti poison laws.

Women were taking poisonous meds that so called “snakeoil “ salesmen sold them telling them the medicine would bring on their periods.

States started banning abortions to protect the women’s life’s.

So abortion was legal since the beginning our country was formed.

Then it was banned to protect women from unsafe “medications “ and procedures.

Then Roe retuned the law to legal abortions before viability.

So no , legal abortions were not new law.

From wiki
Click to expand...

I will not grill you further. i have too much respect for you since you never engage in snark. Thanks.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I will not grill you further. i have too much respect for you since you never engage in snark. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Thank you Robertinfreemont.

I was happy to share what I learned about Roe, why it Constitutioal and why I am convinced early elective abortions will stay legal in the United States.

I agree with the OP of this thread. I have advocate for years on this very debate board for better more effective easily available and affordable birth control . I too believe fewer unplanned pregnancies and even fewer abortions will happen if we work together to achieve that goal.

Peace ✌️
 
minnie616 said:
Thank you Robertinfreemont.

I was happy to share what I learned about Roe, why it Constitutioal and why I am convinced early elective abortions will stay legal in the United States.

I agree with the OP of this thread. I have advocate for years on this very debate board for better more effective easily available and affordable birth control . I too believe fewer unplanned pregnancies and even fewer abortions will happen if we work together to achieve that goal.

Peace ✌️
Click to expand...

When I was only 22, I was asked by a Nurse to come to her home for dinner. I knew she liked to have sex. A pal of mine told me. Somehow, and I forget how, she and I ended up on the phone. She thought I was very sexy. After dinner, with her co renter, a woman tried to stay up all night to watch her, she caught on the Nurse wanted me to stay with her. It took some time but we ended up having sex. Worried I could get her pregnant, I pulled out early. She told me I did not need to pull out early since she was using Birth control. So I have long been aware women use BC and this was in 1962. It has been available for a long long time.

Sex for the woman means she buys BC or gets her man to do it. I was within days of reporting to the Army but I truly liked her. Never saw her again. So my story is for the purpose of illustrating women do buy BC and for many years have.
 
Robertinfremont said:
That is a crock and you know it.

How many laws have you authored?

HOW MANY.

How many debates you were in did you get told to create laws?
Click to expand...

I can certainly describe a law that I would want to see created and presented to our legislature. Give me an issue.

Are you saying you are here, in a thread about abortion solutions, you posted, and then have no idea what you want your solution, a law, to say? To do?

Seriously?
 
minnie616 said:
And as has been explained before the Surpreme Court reviews laws and decides if the law is Constitutional.

In the Roe decision it was decided it was Unconstitutional for states to make laws banning abortions before viability.
Click to expand...
Robertinfremont said:
In fact, wasn't that a brand new law?
Click to expand...

Once again...SCOTUS doesnt create laws :doh

They examined the Constitutionality of elective abortion. And found it Constitutional. It was a legal decision, not law. :doh

Now, US laws must conform to that decision. And thus far, do.
 
Robertinfremont said:
So prior, they could since it was legal. But if the SC now banned this, bingo a new law.
Click to expand...

They have to have a Constitutional basis to do so. They outlined why it wasnt COnstitutional to restrict abortion in RvW. They based that decision on examining current medical practices, women's rights, and at least 10 Constitutional precedents that concerned reproductive privacy and medical decisions.

What legal foundation (i.e. Constitutional) do you see that SCOTUS could use to change their decision? What should they consider?
 
Stopandthink said:
Biological discovery and advances in genetics and prenatal understanding during the mid 1800’s paved the way to illegality of abortion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Um, except they didnt. RvW has been challenged about 10 times...still stands.
 
Lursa said:
They have to have a Constitutional basis to do so. They outlined why it wasnt COnstitutional to restrict abortion in RvW. They based that decision on examining current medical practices, women's rights, and at least 10 Constitutional precedents that concerned reproductive privacy and medical decisions.

What legal foundation (i.e. Constitutional) do you see that SCOTUS could use to change their decision? What should they consider?
Click to expand...

Tell you what. Forget the FEDs. Do what the States want done.

All the states taking up new abortion laws in 2019 | TheHill
 
Robertinfremont said:
Friend, examine them totally and then tell me it makes me look ignorant.

How can you advocate a thing you do not promote? Does the NRA promote guns as Democrats allege?

Oh, while here, may I ask you to read up on the Rules where one is not supposed to flamebait? Calling a person ignorant in my opinion is trying to flame me.
Click to expand...


The Guttmacher Institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and globally.
VISION
A world in which all people are able to exercise their rights and responsibilities regarding sexual behavior and reproduction freely and with dignity.

VALUES
Guttmacher’s program is guided by four overarching institutional values:
›› Commitment to rigor in our research and analysis and to publication of our findings, whatever the ramifications for policies and programs may be
›› Prioritizing the needs of disadvantaged groups and addressing inequities in access to and use of information and services
›› Addressing emerging questions to promote understanding and shape the public debate
›› Collaborating with others to maximize the reach and impact of our research and analysis

OUR WORK
The Institute produces a wide range of resources on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and publishes two peer-reviewed journals, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health and International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and the public policy journal Guttmacher Policy Review. About the Guttmacher Institute

Does this sound like "promoting abortion" to you? And I've read the rules. I called your false statement "ignorant". It was. Making a true factual statement is not flaming.
 
More on dissent opinion And this my friends makes full sense to me and should to you too.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice William Rehnquist. He objected to the majority decision giving several reasons.[9]

He first pointed out there was no legitimate plaintiff in the case and that was a requirement to hear the case. A legitimate plaintiff would be a woman in her first trimester of her pregnancy at some point while the case was being tried. McCorvey (Jane Roe) did not fit that qualification and so the ruling had no application to the case.[9]
The court recognized a woman's right to abortion under the general "right to privacy from previous cases. But he argued, "A transaction such as this is hardly 'private' in the ordinary usage of the word."[9]
The majority opinion was vague on where exactly the right to privacy was located in the Constitution. Several amendments were mentioned, but none were specifically identified to contain the right to privacy. The word privacy is not found in the Constitution.[9]
Additional problems include the court acting as a legislature in breaking pregnancy into three trimesters and outlining the permissible restrictions states may make.[9] Rehnquist pointed out that 36 of the 37 states in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, had laws against abortion, including Texas. He wrote "...The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."[9]
 
weaver2 said:
The Guttmacher Institute is a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and globally.
VISION
A world in which all people are able to exercise their rights and responsibilities regarding sexual behavior and reproduction freely and with dignity.

VALUES
Guttmacher’s program is guided by four overarching institutional values:
›› Commitment to rigor in our research and analysis and to publication of our findings, whatever the ramifications for policies and programs may be
›› Prioritizing the needs of disadvantaged groups and addressing inequities in access to and use of information and services
›› Addressing emerging questions to promote understanding and shape the public debate
›› Collaborating with others to maximize the reach and impact of our research and analysis

OUR WORK
The Institute produces a wide range of resources on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and publishes two peer-reviewed journals, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health and International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and the public policy journal Guttmacher Policy Review.

Does this sound like "promoting abortion" to you? And I've read the rules. I called your false statement "ignorant". It was. Making a true factual statement is not flaming.
Click to expand...

I said a person was a snowflake but got a warning and told not not do it.

You really did worse. Again with Guttmacher. I have dismissed the a few times.
 
Lursa said:
And every single one of those has been blocked as unConstitutional. Not one has been applied.

:doh

Since they all failed, do you have any other ideas for laws?
Click to expand...

JUST read the Hill Article. It does NOT make the claims you made. Again, I realized days ago what your plans are and now you confirmed them.
 
Robertinfremont said:
JUST read the Hill Article. It does NOT make the claims you made. Again, I realized days ago what your plans are and now you confirmed them.
Click to expand...

Every single one of those restricting abortion was blocked. That's a fact.

What are you objecting to?
 
Robertinfremont said:
Read the hill article next time.
Click to expand...

I did. It's old news. All the laws restricting abortion were blocked. Are you claiming that's not true?

And now please answer my question: what are you objecting to? Or, what is your point in posting that article?
 
Lursa said:
I did. It's old news. All the laws restricting abortion were blocked. Are you claiming that's not true?

And now please answer my question: what are you objecting to? Or, what is your point in posting that article?
Click to expand...

No. I told and told you, I am not bugs bunny. I do not live in your rabbit hole. And I do not believe you told the truth since my article is from 2019 but as this shows, a case is still active and could totally change things.

And that strategy is about to face a big test: Earlier this month, the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case concerning a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Depending on what the justices decide, the case could give states across the country the green light to pass stricter and stricter restrictions on clinics, forcing them to close and making abortion impossible to access — even if the procedure remains technically legal.

Alabama abortion ban blocked in court, like other near-total bans - Vox
 
Robertinfremont said:
No. I told and told you, I am not bugs bunny. I do not live in your rabbit hole. And I do not believe you told the truth since my article is from 2019 but as this shows, a case is still active and could totally change things.

And that strategy is about to face a big test: Earlier this month, the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case concerning a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Depending on what the justices decide, the case could give states across the country the green light to pass stricter and stricter restrictions on clinics, forcing them to close and making abortion impossible to access — even if the procedure remains technically legal.

Alabama abortion ban blocked in court, like other near-total bans - Vox
Click to expand...

LMAO your own link says exactly what I wrote: the law is blocked...but you accuse me of lying? :doh

and there will always be states that will allow abortion, should any states manage to get these thru the higher courts.

But as I wrote, truthfully, all those new laws were blocked. Some have may still be heard, like the one you linked, others were already knocked down because they were unConstitutional.

But the law you linked to is extremely hypocritical and isnt likely to be upheld...most states allow mid-wives to do home births...and those are by far more dangerous. And there's no public speaking out to force those mid-wives to have admitting privileges at hospitals. And they arent even Drs. The states allow certified mid-wives to assist with home births, a much more dangerous thing, yet they demand Drs have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals (as if they wouldnt admit any woman who was in danger?)

But hey, feel free to own the hypocrisy on your 'quest.'
 
Last edited:
Robertinfremont said:
More on dissent opinion And this my friends makes full sense to me and should to you too.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice William Rehnquist. He objected to the majority decision giving several reasons.[9]
Click to expand...



Justice Rehnquist was one out of 9 Justices on the Supreme Court when Roe was legally decided.

When a Supreme Court case is reviewed the case is decided by majority of Judges. 7 of the Justices decided that several precedents regarding right to privacy had already been decided and that procreation was a right to privacy that had already been decided.

[posted by Roberinfreemont]

He first pointed out there was no legitimate plaintiff in the case and that was a requirement to hear the case. A legitimate plaintiff would be a woman in her first trimester of her pregnancy at some point while the case was being tried. McCorvey (Jane Roe) did not fit that qualification and so the ruling had no application to the case.[9]
The court recognized a woman's right to abortion under the general "right to privacy from previous cases. But he argued, "A transaction such as this is hardly 'private' in the ordinary usage of the word."[9]
The majority opinion was vague on where exactly the right to privacy was located in the Constitution. Several amendments were mentioned, but none were specifically identified to contain the right to privacy. The word privacy is not found in the Constitution.[9]
Click to expand...


Yes, the court did recognize the right to privacy was a general right to privacy from privacy from previous cases.

I thought I already posted the precedents butI will post them again in my next post so you can review them again.

Also look at 9th amendment. It acknowledgesthat there are rights that are not specifically covered in the original Constitution that are still Constitutional.


[posted by Robertinfreemont]

Additional problems include the court acting as a legislature in breaking pregnancy into three trimesters and outlining the permissible restrictions states may make.[9]
Click to expand...

When deciding Roe the Justices decided the right to privacy extended to the Abortion and that it abortion is decision a decision left up the doctor and his/her pregnant patient.

Roe also needed to take into concideration the States rights to protecting it’s interest in a potential future citizen.

They decided that states could take a compelling interest in a future citizen after the 6 month ...
that was later changed to Viability because improvements in medical technology were happening and they set viabity ( or the potential of the unborn to survive outside the woman’s womb even if medical technology support were needed to help the preeemie surive ) .

[posted by Robertinfreemont ]
Rehnquist pointed out that 36 of the 37 states in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, had laws against abortion, including Texas. He wrote "...The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."[9]
Click to expand...

When the 19th Amendment was passed giving women rights ...the right to vote , etc. it also gave them the right to abortion under the due process of the 14 th amendment.
 
Last edited:
I had posted this on post 251 of this thread but I will again post the right to privacy precedents that came before Roe .




I would like to point out that several right to privacy precedents were set before Roe v Wade.
The more precedents, the harder it is to overturn a SC ruling.

It will be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including right to privacy regarding child rearing rights , such as the right for parents to send their children to private or religious schools instead of public schools.

The following Surpreme Court decisions would most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom