[W: #624] Roe v Wade was a good decision until anti-abortion extremists overturned it , thanks to Trump

[MAGAnificent]

With all due respect...you don't get the fact that the State legislatures are the problem. Women can't trust them to protect their rights. Why do you think FL , AZ and other states want is on the ballot in November? women don't do "resigned" when it comes to their reproductive choices.

Without a constitutional amendment suggesting otherwise, the abortion issue is with the individual states as it was before Roe V Wade. As for the suggestion that the states are the problem, that is BS. The states have politicians that are much more accountable to the vioters then national politicians are. And if you are considering a bill before congress giving national abortion rights, that would have the same problem as Roe V Wade. It would ultimately die at the SCOTUS. No matter who wins in November, the abortion lobby has two choices....either accept that your fight is with the individual states or push for a constitutional amerndment making it a federal guarantee. That's it. If you think women are that caught up in the quest for "abortion on demand", perhaps they can use that energy to push a constitutional amendment. However they should be intellectually honest and avoid using the term "reproductive rights. Women have always had the right to reproduce.

 

[Gordy327]

Without a constitutional amendment suggesting otherwise, the abortion issue is with the individual states as it was before Roe V Wade. As for the suggestion that the states are the problem, that is BS.

That's why abortion went thru the courts to the SCOTUS & Roe was decided to begin with. History will repeat itself.

 

[weaver2]

Some states are trying to make it harder to put abortion on their ballots or find ways to circumvent it. History has shown some states are quite poor when it comes to individual rights and autonomy. That's one reason why abortion should not be a state issue and why Roe was decided in the first place.

Allowing states to individually decide rights was deemed discriminatory for Blacks but this SC has implied it's OK to decide women's rights. State SC have refused to let citizens vote on ballot issues about abortion. Women have essentially lost the right to vote.

 

[MAGAnificent]

That's why abortion went thru the courts to the SCOTUS & Roe was decided to begin with. History will repeat itself.

You are completely missing the point. The right direction would have been to push a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access rather then Roe V Wade. Roe V WSade passed simply because it had support in the court at the time. Had there been an amendment in the Constitution backing that up, we would not be having this conversation today. I suspect that you know that the right to private ownership of firearms still exists today despite decades of librul attempts to take that right away. The reason for that is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Okay?

 

[Gordy327]

Allowing states to individually decide rights was deemed discriminatory for Blacks but this SC has implied it's OK to decide women's rights. State SC have refused to let citizens vote on ballot issues about abortion. Women have essentially lost the right to vote.

Women can potentially lose more rights or autonomy, depending on the state.

 

[Gordy327]

You are completely missing the point. The right direction would have been to push a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access rather then Roe V Wade. Roe V WSade passed simply because it had support in the court at the time. Had there been an amendment in the Constitution backing that up, we would not be having this conversation today. I suspect that you know that the right to private ownership of firearms still exists today despite decades of librul attempts to take that right away. The reason for that is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Okay?

The point is there is no legal basis for abortion restrictions, which is partly why such restrictions were legally challenged until Roe and even now. The rest of your post about the 2nd Amendment is just a Red Herring

 

[watsup]

So you're talking about the result and not the quality of their reasoning, i.e., the fact that 7 men in robes circumvented the democratic process to make a new law that previously did not exist. That's what I figured. I guess it was too much to hope that you'd be talking about the actual reasoning in the decision that led to the desired result. What's wrong with making our law through the democratic process?

Also, we obviously don't let people make whatever decisions they want to make. A woman could make her "own decision" to drown her baby in a bathtub. What's wrong with that?

Thr quality of reasoning was excellent in Roe, with the seven jurors who approved it reaching across the gamut from liberal to conservative and including both Democrat and Republican appointees, thus correctly reflecting a broad section of the American people. Contrast that to the Dobbs decision in which five far right jurors made a decision based on their own extremism rather than solid Constitutional principles. I read at least part of the Dobbs decision, and it sounded like it was written by a fifth-grader. His primary argument was nothing more than “NO!” Roe had a solid base of the privacy of the American people, to include the privacy of the decision of a woman as opposed to being made a ward of the state by Dobbs. As regards the privacy issue, Alito just said “NO!” and that’s about it in terms of “reasoning”. Dobbs will go down in history as one of the worst decisions of the SC as a result of the extremists primarily appointed by Trump.

 

[Noodlegawd]

rational Republicans, appalled at what red states have created, try to establish parameters on abortion that look remarkably like Roe.

Using the democratic process presumably. Or magic?

 

[Noodlegawd]

It created ....

Indeed.

 

[Lursa]

Indeed.

Aaaaaannnndddd...dog catches car

 

[watsup]

Using the democratic process presumably. Or magic?

Can the democratic process be used to deny Constitutional rights to citizens? It has in the past, you know? The courts are needed in order to correct such injustices, as they have been doing recently until the Dobbs decision actually REMOVED rights. That is why it is such a terrible decision and will go down in history as such.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Can the democratic process be used to deny Constitutional rights to citizens? It has in the past, you know? The courts are needed in order to correct such injustices, as they have been doing recently until the Dobbs decision actually REMOVED rights. That is why it is such a terrible decision and will go down in history as such.

You missed the point of my question, but I'm not inclined to explain it to you.

 

[watsup]

You missed the point of my question, but I'm not inclined to explain it to you.

That’s okey. Post #32 was my primary rebuttal to your inaccurate claims about Roe and Dobbs.

 

[Thor ismeandyou]

What's so bad about putting Abortion to states rights?

 

[MamboDervish]

What's so bad about putting Abortion to states rights?

The exact same thing that would be bad about putting slavery to state’s rights. There are some powers only the federal government should have oversight on. It’s what they’re for.

 

[Gordy327]

What's so bad about putting Abortion to states rights?

Some states don't respect a woman's individual rights or autonomy. They assign completely arbitrary restriction times with no rhyme or reason. Neither is there any legal or rational basis for abortion restrictions. And how is abortion any of the states or anyone else's business?

 

[Noodlegawd]

That’s okey. Post #32 was my primary rebuttal to your inaccurate claims about Roe and Dobbs.

Post #32 also has the luxury of being wrong.

 

[Thor ismeandyou]

Some states don't respect a woman's individual rights or autonomy. They assign completely arbitrary restriction times with no rhyme or reason. Neither is there any legal or rational basis for abortion restrictions. And how is abortion any of the states or anyone else's business?

there is no such thing as women's rights and autonomy men don't have that right so why should women?

sometimes people misuse the word rights to actually mean special privileges.

during the 1980s the big thing was Christian rights. It meant that Christians had the rights to things like first choice of job, higher pay, and so on

During the 1930s German magazines such as Ostara went on about blond rights.

As for me the only rights I'll accept are the rights enumerated in the bill Of Rights.

For the proper decision for abortion is states rights per the tenth amendment.

 

[Gordy327]

there is no such thing as women's rights and autonomy men don't have that right so why should women?

It seems you're not familiar with the Constitution. And what rights are men being denied with abortion restrictions?

sometimes people misuse the word rights to actually mean special privileges.

One's bodily autonomy is not a privilege. It's a right! Neither can anyone be compelled to have their body used for the benefit of another without consent.

during the 1980s the big thing was Christian rights. It meant that Christians had the rights to things like first choice of job, higher pay, and so on

During the 1930s German magazines such as Ostara went on about blond rights

Nice Red Herrings. Such a lovely shade of crimson.

As for me the only rights I'll accept are the rights enumerated in the bill Of Rights.

For the proper decision for abortion is states rights per the tenth amendment.

See first statement. That and the fact there is no legal basis for abortion restrictions.

 

[Thor ismeandyou]

There is no basis for women's rights either. And there is no right to bodily autonomy in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Gordy327]

There is no basis for women's rights either. And there is no right to bodily autonomy in the Bill of Rights.

You have quite the myopic view of the Constitution. Or perhaps cherry picking it.

 

[BabaVoss]

The government should not be involved in any way with regard to abortion. The difference between the two sides on this issue:

One side wants the woman involved, her loved ones, and her doctor to make any decisions. I call this “personal liberty”.
The other side wants the government to force everyone to follow their instructions. I call this “forced birth”.

Choose your side.

Streamlined version;
Side A: Personal Liberty
Side B: Forced Birth

 

[Thor ismeandyou]

Neither. You made the claim that a woman has the right to bodily autonomy so you have to prove it. You can prove to me without personal attacks and showing me where in the constitution it directly says that without any interpretations.

 

[MamboDervish]

there is no such thing as women's rights and autonomy men don't have that right so why should women?

Stupid question. Men don't risk pregnancy.

sometimes people misuse the word rights to actually mean special privileges.

Often.

during the 1980s the big thing was Christian rights. It meant that Christians had the rights to things like first choice of job, higher pay, and so on

During the 1930s German magazines such as Ostara went on about blond rights.

As for me the only rights I'll accept are the rights enumerated in the bill Of Rights.

For the proper decision for abortion is states rights per the tenth amendment.

No it isn't.

 

[watsup]

What's so bad about putting Abortion to states rights?

Ask the women who no longer have rights to privacy and freedom from fascist government interference.