• 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!

Why do Anti-abortion advocates ignore statistics.

MAGAnificent said:
You used up my allotted time trying to educate you. You said it yourself. I was repeating myself. You still do not get the point.
Click to expand...

If you had more, you wouldnt have been repeating yourself AND also repeating what I told you. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Gordy327 said:
Cite the specific law or legal code the SCOTUS "legislated!"
Click to expand...
You have already missed the point. RvW out of the blue turned a state issue into a federal one, with nothing in the US Constitution to back it up. The SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch, not the legislative branch. They should not be legislating anything. They are there to interpret law, not write it.
 
MAGAnificent said:
You have already missed the point. RvW out of the blue turned a state issue into a federal one, with nothing in the US Constitution to back it up. The SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch, not the legislative branch. They should not be legislating anything. They are there to interpret law, not write it.
Click to expand...
You Said the SCOTUS legislated. Specify the legislation! The SCOTUS has full authority to hear a state's legal cases and rule on them. Such rulings can apply to all states. They interpreted state laws prohibiting abortion at the time to be unconstitutional. What did they legislate?
 
MAGAnificent said:
Not on issues not relegated to the federal government.
Click to expand...
That is false! The SCOTUS can hear and rule on any legal case, state or federal, brought before the court.
 
MAGAnificent said:
Perhaps I am hopintg that if I repeat myself enough times, you will grasp the points.

RvW for all practical purposes legislated from the bench. How many times do I have the point out that the issue of abortion , short of a constitutional amendment is not relegated to the federal governemtn?

And you are silly enough to ask why I am repeating myself? Short of a US constitutional amendment, the federal government should have never had a say on the issue of abortion.

How dumb that you never get the point?

I try to avoid ladders. I have a bad hip. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
RBG thought the SC should have decided the Roe case based on the equal liberty clause of the 14th Amendment, and many people, including myself, agree with this assessment. That would not have been accused on legislating from the bench, though if Roe is to be criticized for that, it's because of the long trimester system description. But truth be told, that whole thing was just the SC anticipating that states were going to bring case after case to get more details about what was acceptable or not, and the court wanted to give guidelines to avoid that.
 
MAGAnificent said:
You have already missed the point. RvW out of the blue turned a state issue into a federal one, with nothing in the US Constitution to back it up. The SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch, not the legislative branch. They should not be legislating anything. They are there to interpret law, not write it.
Click to expand...
The equal liberty clause of the 14th Amendment would more readily back up a ruling allowing abortion rights. The 13th Amendment also ends both slavery and also involuntary servitude except as punishment for crime. Unwanted pregnancy is both.

The hateful nature of the urge to control the bodies of women against their will, in the end, will do in the right wing, because viciousness toward other persons can come back to bite them.
 
choiceone said:
RBG thought the SC should have decided the Roe case based on the equal liberty clause of the 14th Amendment, and many people, including myself, agree with this assessment. That would not have been accused on legislating from the bench, though if Roe is to be criticized for that, it's because of the long trimester system description. But truth be told, that whole thing was just the SC anticipating that states were going to bring case after case to get more details about what was acceptable or not, and the court wanted to give guidelines to avoid that.
Click to expand...
That is quite a load of BS.
 
MAGAnificent said:
You have already missed the point. RvW out of the blue turned a state issue into a federal one, with nothing in the US Constitution to back it up. The SCOTUS is part of the Judicial branch, not the legislative branch. They should not be legislating anything. They are there to interpret law, not write it.
Click to expand...
I think you are confused. There was a nation-wide movement to reform or repeal state abortion laws all over the US from about 1962 up to the point that the Roe v Wade decision came down from the SC in 1973. It was led by doctors, Protestant church women, and feminists from the women's movement. It began because all of them thought that it was disgusting that the adolescent female suicide rate was high because of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, that women could not have control of their own fertility, and that most states were so backward they didn't allow abortion in cases of rape or to save a woman's health or if the fetus was hopelessly deformed.

In the early 1960s, Sherry Finkbine, a local TV star of a TV program for children in Texas, took thalidomide while pregnant with her sixth or seventh child because of an illness, and the fetus became totally deformed. She couldn't get an abortion legally anywhere in the US, so she flew to Sweden and had one. This became a huge scandal - the thalidomide scandal in which huge numbers of Americans protested the lack of a right to abortion in a case where the fetus was seriously deformed and the woman herself had not done anything wrong consciously. I still remember reading about the case in the news and being horrified by the evil people who made anti-abortion laws to control the inside of the sex organs of other people against their will.
 
choiceone said:
I still remember reading about the case in the news and being horrified by the evil people who made anti-abortion laws to control the inside of the sex organs of other people against their will.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The fascination/obsession some people have towards a total stranger's reproductive choices never made sense to me. It's completely irrational. How is anyone's gestational choices anyone else's or the state's business or concern, especiallywhen abortionhas zero negative effect on others or society? No one ever seems able to answer that question.
 
choiceone said:
I think you are confused. There was a nation-wide movement to reform or repeal state abortion laws all over the US from about 1962 up to the point that the Roe v Wade decision came down from the SC in 1973. It was led by doctors, Protestant church women, and feminists from the women's movement. It began because all of them thought that it was disgusting that the adolescent female suicide rate was high because of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, that women could not have control of their own fertility, and that most states were so backward they didn't allow abortion in cases of rape or to save a woman's health or if the fetus was hopelessly deformed.
Click to expand...
It is you that is quite confused. I get that there was a national movement against state abortion laws, however with nothing to back up abortion rights in the US constitution, the right way to proceed would have been to push a US Constitutional amendment to make abortion a federal issue. The SCOTUS cannot simply repeal laws that are relegated to the states. That is why Roe vs Wade ultimately failed. In the roughly 50 years that Roe V Wade was in force, the abortion movement or the democrat party could have at least codified Roe V Wade into law, which would have given it more teeth, however they didn't. And that was intentional They chose to keep it vulnerable to a future SCOTUS decision reversing it, for the sake of fundraising and fighting off conservative nominees to the federal bench or the SCOTUS. They did not expect that it would actually be reversed, but they played it that way for political benefit. To put it more bluntly, the democrat party played people like you.
 
MAGAnificent said:
It is you that is quite confused. I get that there was a national movement against state abortion laws, however with nothing to back up abortion rights in the US constitution, the right way to proceed would have been to push a US Constitutional amendment to make abortion a federal issue. The SCOTUS cannot simply repeal laws that are relegated to the states. That is why Roe vs Wade ultimately failed. In the roughly 50 years that Roe V Wade was in force, the abortion movement or the democrat party could have at least codified Roe V Wade into law, which would have given it more teeth, however they didn't. And that was intentional They chose to keep it vulnerable to a future SCOTUS decision reversing it, for the sake of fundraising and fighting off conservative nominees to the federal bench or the SCOTUS. They did not expect that it would actually be reversed, but they played it that way for political benefit. To put it more bluntly, the democrat party played people like you.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS interpreted facets of the Constitution to rule on Roe and strike down abortion laws, as is within their purview. They didn't eliminate the laws ouright, as states could still restrict abortion beyond a certain point in gestation. It's as simple as that. The states certainly could never come up with a legal explanation or rationale for restricting abortion to begin with. The flaw with Roe was, it didn't go far enough.
 
Gordy327 said:
The SCOTUS interpreted facets of the Constitution to rule on Roe and strike down abortion laws, as is within their purview. They didn't eliminate the laws ouright, as states could still restrict abortion beyond a certain point in gestation. It's as simple as that. The states certainly could never come up with a legal explanation or rationale for restricting abortion to begin with. The flaw with Roe was, it didn't go far enough.
Click to expand...
I suppose you will never get the point. There are issues relegated to the federal government and there are issues relegated to the states. Any issue not relegated to the federal government is a state issue. Abortion is one such issue. Not every state law falls under federal supremacy. Read and study the 10th amendment if you still do not understand. If abortion was specifically covered in the US constitution, we would not be having this discussion. Roe V Wade was ultimate reversed by the Dobbs decision because it enjoyed no such protection. The right to bear firearms survives despite many attempts to remove that right because the right is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
 
MAGAnificent said:
I suppose you will never get the point. There are issues relegated to the federal government and there are issues relegated to the states. Any issue not relegated to the federal government is a state issue. Abortion is one such issue. Not every state law falls under federal supremacy.
Click to expand...
What you dont seem to get is any legal issue or challenge, such as abortion laws, can move through the courts until it reaches the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter on such issues regardless if they are state or federal.
MAGAnificent said:
Read and study the 10th amendment if you still do not understand. If abortion was specifically covered in the US constitution, we would not be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
Read the responsibility and authority of the SCOTUS as the highest court in the land!
MAGAnificent said:
Roe V Wade was ultimate reversed by the Dobbs decision because it enjoyed no such protection.
Click to expand...
1 SCOTUS court can overturn the ruling of another. This is nothing new.
MAGAnificent said:
The right to bear firearms survives despite many attempts to remove that right because the right is protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
No one is attempting to remove the 2nd Amendment, so that point is moot.
 
Gordy327 said:
Read the responsibility and authority of the SCOTUS as the highest court in the land!
Click to expand...
Not on issues relegated to the states.
Gordy327 said:
1 SCOTUS court can overturn the ruling of another. This is nothing new.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUD cannot overturn state laws unless those laws conflict with the US Constitution.
Gordy327 said:
No one is attempting to remove the 2nd Amendment, so that point is moot.
Click to expand...
No, a repeal would be a lengthy process that would have to be approved by 38 states. Any such effort will fail. However state and federal politicians have attempted still attempted to take away the right to bear arms and ended up stopped by the 2nd amendment. That's my point. The abortion issue has no such amendment to fall back on.
 
MAGAnificent said:
Not on issues relegated to the states.
Click to expand...
The issue started in the states and went through due process up to the SCOTUS. That's how the system works.
MAGAnificent said:
The SCOTUD cannot overturn state laws unless those laws conflict with the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
Of course it can. It has that authority as the highest court in the land.
MAGAnificent said:
No, a repeal would be a lengthy process that would have to be approved by 38 states. Any such effort will fail. However state and federal politicians have attempted still attempted to take away the right to bear arms and ended up stopped by the 2nd amendment. That's my point. The abortion issue has no such amendment to fall back on.
Click to expand...
Your point is irrelevant. The SCOTUS is able to rule on any issue that comes before it. This is basic civics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom