Govenor Cuomo Threatens To Sue Supreme Court If Roe vs. Wade Is Overturned

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: scrounger

I appreciated and agree with everything you've posted, except this:

f it were repealed it does not make abortion on demand (lets be UP FRONT HERE that is what pro abortionists want, no restrictions what so ever) illegal in any way...

This is a false narrative. There are no "pro-abortionists" trying to push Roe V Wade past its viability line, to allow women abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. That's just FALSE!

Only sociopaths and psychopaths are pro-abortion. Most people you have categorized as pro-abortion are really "pro-choice".

On the other hand, there are plenty of activist pro-lifers who are just fine with forcing women to give birth to unwanted babies, and chipping away at Roe V Wade's viability line and women's rights, toward that forced birth goal.

I find it refreshing to have an non attack disagreement when discussing this option.
refreshing

now on to your point

look this is an issue that abortion rights activists (the one protesting hardest for Roe V wade) is for abortion on demand.
that is NO RESTRICTIONS . In cold hard terms at any time they want "just because" to end a biological part of them.

when ANY restrictions no matter how logical they are come up they fight tooth and nail.. scream "slippery slope", anti women, ect.

Just look at when VIABLE LIVE children in third tri mester up to birth banning law the fight they put up.
it is truly frightening .

Then you add that that "pick your name" entity in your body how the law looks at it

if say a person shoots and kills both the mother and "fetus" the person gets murder charges ON TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
people have been convicted and gone to jail on this.

you dont get this for ANYTHING but a human with rights.

but if a mother CHOOSES to abort it isnt a person and can be killed.

you cant have it both ways and have a logical argument for abortion on demand.

now where am I going.

pro choice is pro abortion on demand...pure and simple

I am for saving the life of the mother, medical defects of child, rape, incest that abortion is a NEEDED medical option.

but thats not pro choice and what many are.

so given the way the law views the fetus depending and what the abortion rights supporters are REALLY ASKING FOR then you cant claim pro choice but against abortion.

if your for a choice (again NOT FOR CERTIFIED MEDICAL REASON) then your for it.

Im sorry if thats unpalatable and uncomfortable.
but if you gonna call it a life under the law then if your not against it your for it.

scrounger

a reply to: Sookiechacha

which part of the supreme court by its CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES is not supposed to make law but see if a law is constitutional or not are you not getting

abortion is NOT a clear right under the constitution.

Roe v wade made it a right by judicial fiat and a FEDERAL right to boot.

if roe v wade is overturned then abortion isnt legal or illegal UNDER FEDERAL LAW but the legality is returned to the state under amendment 10 "any right not expressly provided to the government is relegated to the states"

in which case ANY JUDGE if following their CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES must look at a states abortion law and rule the feds (outside of something clearly against an established constitutional amendment) cannot overrule it hence constitutional.

If you want the judges to rule against abortion laws then the framers of the constitution gave you a way.
its called MAKING AND PASSING AN AMENDMENT.

IF you make an amendment that abortion is a right then the judges have no choice but to (except in extreme case) side with you.

it seems the problem is you DONT HAVE THE SUPPORT to pass an abortion on demand amendment so you try to bypass with the courts.

either you have the support and get the amendment or you dont.

if you dont sorry but thats how the constitution works.
if abortion is so important to you personally then move to a country that has it.

if not then even if you dont like it its the constitution...

suck it up

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

abortion is NOT a clear right under the constitution.

Roe v wade made it a right by judicial fiat and a FEDERAL right to boot.

No. Roe V Wade ruled that state laws proscribing abortion were unconstitutional, before fetal viability. After viability, the states rights are restored, unless a woman's health and life are at risk.

If you want the judges to rule against abortion laws then the framers of the constitution gave you a way.
its called MAKING AND PASSING AN AMENDMENT.

if you dont sorry but thats how the constitution works.
if abortion is so important to you personally then move to a country that has it.

if not then even if you dont like it its the constitution...

suck it up

I explained all that in my very first post in this thread, on page one. Read it and weep, then go "Suck it up"!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: scrounger

I find it refreshing to have an non attack disagreement when discussing this option.
refreshing

now on to your point

look this is an issue that abortion rights activists (the one protesting hardest for Roe V wade) is for abortion on demand.
that is NO RESTRICTIONS . In cold hard terms at any time they want "just because" to end a biological part of them.

Cool.

Abortion rights activists aren't trying to change or push back Roe V Wade. Pro-choicers are happy with Roe V Wade the way it is. It aint broke, so there's nothing to fix.

It's the people that are chipping away at Roe V Wade and that viability line, that's causing abortion activists to fight back.

Pro-life advocated are trying to make it a crime to abort a pre-viable down syndrome fetus, for example. That's a push back on the viability line of Roe V Wade. It's not that pro-choicers want the right to abort for any reason, it's that right wing lawmakers are trying to determine, for the woman and her family, which reasons are good enough reasons.

Just look at when VIABLE LIVE children in third tri mester up to birth banning law the fight they put up.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.