The Roe V Wade Protests are Coming

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What Alito's draft opinion does is say there is no constitutional right to abortion, in the face of almost 50 years of precedence.

Alito acknowledges the precedence, but he also shows how that precedence is itself based on false information. Therefore, the precedence is tainted and so is everything that follows based on it.

Are you saying that any decision made by the Supreme Court can never be overturned? The Supreme Court made decisions at one time that indicated slavery was legal.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm saying.....The issue, It's not that simple as just "turning it over to the states" once you set the "emotions" aside.

That's a very dismissive talking point for women who would be affected by "just turning it over to the states".

The Supreme Court made decisions at one time that indicated slavery was legal.

Which took already affirmed rights away from nobody.

The Supreme Court has never made a ruling that removed previously affirmed constitutional rights.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The issue, It's not that simple as just "turning it over to the states" once you set the "emotions" aside.

Actually, it is. The 10th Amendment, repeated yet again since you still seem to want to ignore it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Is abortion specified in the US Constitution as a power delegated to the Federal government? No, it is not.

Is abortion prohibited to the individual states by the US Constitution? No, it is not.

Therefore abortion regulation is the sole venue of the individual states as per the US Constitution. Don't like it? Call for a Constitutional Convention and amend the Constitution.

That's a very dismissive talking point for women who would be affected by "just turning it over to the states".

That's called an emotional argument. I thought you said you were putting aside the emotion?

The Supreme Court has never made a ruling that removed previously affirmed constitutional rights.

Actually, Roe v. Wade did just that. It removed the right of the unborn to live and grow.

You do realize that women are not the only people who have rights, right?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Actually, it is. The 10th Amendment, repeated yet again since you still seem to want to ignore it:

Debating with some of these posters is a futile effort.

Theyll just keep repeating what theyve been told by the leftists programmers , parroting like fancy colored birds, ignoring when theyre shown that their talking points arent accurate.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

a reply to: TheRedneck

You keep parroting Alito's argument, as if it's law and fact.

Alito basically ignores the 9th Amendment, and so do you. So, I'll repeat it yet again.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The "people" have been retaining their constitutional reproductive rights since 1973, earlier if you count the court's rulings on contraception.

That's called an emotional argument. I thought you said you were putting aside the emotion?

No. The poster suggested the issue is simple, once we set aside the emotion. You can't take reproductive rights away from women and expect no emotional response! SMH

Actually, Roe v. Wade did just that. It removed the right of the unborn to live and grow.

Oh! Please cite the SCOTUS ruling that gave constitutional rights to the unborn before it was overturned in 1973. Otherwise, my assertion stands. SCOTUS has never ruled to repeal a constitutional right it's affirmed over and over again.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All the 9th Amendment says is (paraphase): "The Bill of Rights should not be mistaken as a total list of rights that the People of the USA have."

It should not be interpreted to state "The People of the USA have any rights they can come up with."

See: 10th Amendment.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't think that's what it says at all. I think it says what it says:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

You all are construing the idea that reproductive are rights aren't listed among the rights like freedom of religion or speech, therefore the court has the right to deny those rights from the people who have retained them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You keep parroting Alito's argument, as if it's law and fact.

Because I read it, and I find the reasoning sound.

Alito basically ignores the 9th Amendment, and so do you. So, I'll repeat it yet again.

The 9th amendment does not specify what these "other rights" are. By your interpretation, anything could be considered a right under the 9th Amendment. Abortion is not specified as one of these "other rights," so it requires an additional argument to show it should be a right.

I maintain that no one has the right to take another sentient human life, and since the unborn child is alive, is human, and is a unique instance of human, the argument boils down to sentience. Now, as soon as you can prove to me that the child is not sentient at a certain stage, I'll agree that abortions at that point might be a right. But you're going to have to prove it, not just throw those feelz out there. You have claimed before that certain things were "following the science"... so show me the science. Show me hard evidence that the child at XX weeks cannot be sentient.

The poster suggested the issue is simple, once we set aside the emotion. You can't take reproductive rights away from women and expect no emotional response!

So you're saying you wanted to set aside the emotional argument, but the entire argument is inherently emotional?

Keep this up and your fingers are going to get tied in a knot you can't untie.

Please cite the SCOTUS ruling that gave constitutional rights to the unborn before it was overturned in 1973.

The Supreme Court does not define rights, grant rights, or determine rights. That's where you are going off the rails. The Supreme Court only reviews laws to determine if those laws interfere with rights. In Roe v. Wade, it overstepped its Constitutional authority and created law, something specifically forbidden. It also tried to establish a right which did not exist before, evidenced in Alito's opinion by the preponderance of state regulations on abortion that existed prior to 1973.

The Supreme Court does not establish rights! That is not its purpose!

The Supreme Court does not make law! That is not its purpose!

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You all are construing the idea that reproductive are rights aren't listed among the rights like freedom of religion or speech, therefore the court has the right to deny those rights from the people who have retained them.

No, we are saying that any power not specifically granted to the Federal government or prohibited to the states becomes a state issue automatically per the 10th Amendment. That means that even if somehow, killing another were a right, the Federal government could not legislate it because it is not specified. That power is reserved to the states.

You do not get to pick and choose what sections of the Constitution you want to abide by today. The entire Constitution applies.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you're saying you wanted to set aside the emotional argument, but the entire argument is inherently emotional?

No. I'm saying that suggesting that if we could just remove the emotion from the issue, then the issue is "simple", is unrealistic and dismissive.

The 9th amendment does not specify what these "other rights" are. By your interpretation, anything could be considered a right under the 9th Amendment.

No. I'm saying that since 1973 the people have retained the constitutional right to an abortion, due to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it so and that it affirmed that right, over and over again.

I maintain that no one has the right to take another sentient human life, and since the unborn child is alive, is human, and is a unique instance of human, the argument boils down to sentience. Now, as soon as you can prove to me that the child is not sentient at a certain stage, I'll agree that abortions at that point might be a right.

Oh, okay. That's your new goal post.

I've always maintained that Roe V Wade isn't broken, so there's no need to fix it. Roe says a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion during the 1st trimester. During the 2nd, the States can regulate abortion on behalf of the health and safety of the mother up to the point of "viability", after which point the State can ban abortion, except to protect the life and health of the woman.

That's always been my goal post, and I don't need to prove anything to anyone as to why.

You do not get to pick and choose what sections of the Constitution you want to abide by today. The entire Constitution applies.

Ditto. The 9th Amendment is not to be ignored.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm saying that suggesting that if we could just remove the emotion from the issue, then the issue is "simple", is unrealistic and dismissive.

And I am saying that basing anything off emotional feelings is a bad idea. Just the other day, a kid in Texas decided to get emotional. The cops were emotional. How did that turn out?

We are discussing law. Law is never based on emotion. Law is based on equality.

I'm saying that since 1973 the people have retained the constitutional right to an abortion, due to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it so and that it affirmed that right, over and over again.=

Which was an unconstitutional act from the start. Read Article 1 Section 1. The Supreme Court is not Congress and cannot make new law.

That's your new goal post.

That has been my position since I was old enough to know what an abortion is.

I've always maintained that Roe V Wade isn't broken, so there's no need to fix it.

I again refer you to Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution. The very first line after the Preamble. It was always broken because it was always unconstitutional. Whether you like the result is irrelevant; the end does not justify the means.

That's always been my goal post, and I don't need to prove anything to anyone as to why.

You do if you expect anyone to take your position seriously.

The 9th Amendment is not to be ignored.

The 9th amendment does not mention abortion. Even if you want it to.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I totally get the whole MAGA "Eff Your Feelings" trope.


Doesn't make it any less dismissive and disrespectful of women.

We are discussing law. Law is never based on emotion. Law is based on equality.

Not really. We're discussing Alito's leaked draft opinion. It's not "law" just yet. We need to wait for the actual SCOTUS decision to come down. Until then, we're discussing a hypothetical ruling.

The 9th amendment does not mention abortion. Even if you want it to.

It also doesn't mention privacy or executive privilege.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Doesn't make it any less dismissive and disrespectful of women.

If believing that women are equal under the law and therefore cannot just kill others indiscriminately is "dismissive and disrespectful," then consider me "dismissive and disrespectful."

We're discussing Alito's leaked draft opinion. It's not "law" just yet. We need to wait for the actual SCOTUS decision to come down.

You were discussing Roe v. Wade and calling it a law. Keep up, Sookie.

It also doesn't mention privacy or executive privilege.

Exactly. There's no reason to; the 9th Amendment concerns unenumerated rights. Privacy is actually enumerated specifically in the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Executive Privilege is not even a right. Executive Privilege is a matter of bureaucracy, and itself is alluded to in the body of the Constitution (Impeachment of a sitting official cannot in itself include criminal or civil penalties).

I'm starting to think you honestly have no earthly idea what a right even is.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck
The "people" have been retaining their constitutional reproductive rights since 1973, earlier if you count the court's rulings on contraception.

So, you want to uphold the 50 years of precedent since 1973, and ignore the almost 200 years of precedent prior to 1973?

To quote... you... "SMH"

a reply to: tanstaafl

Well, that's what happens when someone starts thinking their "feelz" matter more than logic and reason.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If believing that women are equal under the law and therefore cannot just kill others indiscriminately is "dismissive and disrespectful," then consider me "dismissive and disrespectful."

That's a pretty emotional, and hyperbolic, diatribe! LOL

You were discussing Roe v. Wade and calling it a law. Keep up, Sookie.

The Roe decision ruled that laws that banned abortion were unconstitutional.

Privacy is actually enumerated specifically in the 4th Amendment

It may come as a surprise that the Constitution of the United States does not specifically protect your right to privacy. In fact, state and federal laws can limit some individual privacy rights when there is a compelling government interest to do so.
...
Even though the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, for cases such as Roe V. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that several Amendments imply these rights

LINK

Privacy is an implied right, not specifically enumerated. The 4th Amendment should protect a woman's uterus from government search and seizures. But, according to Alito, it doesn't.

Executive Privilege is not even a right. Executive Privilege is a matter of bureaucracy, and itself is alluded to in the body of the Constitution (Impeachment of a sitting official cannot in itself include criminal or civil penalties).

Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that permits the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
....
Executive privilege is an implied presidential power that is recognized by the courts, most famously in the U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Supreme Court case.

lawliberty.org...

And around and around we go where we stop only God knows

Why haven’t the almighty dnc made congress pass a law to make abortion legal?
It is pretty simple.
Pass the law dems.


Oh
You don’t actually have the public support you claim?
Again?

Compromise dems.

Oh
You can’t do that either?

Dp

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PageLC14


No. Consensual sex doesn't equal an invitation to parenthood. Women aren't fertile 100% of the time. Contraception isn't effective 100%, and accidents happen.

Children should be wanted and cherished. Children shouldn't be considered a punishment for enjoying consensual sex. Nor should a rape victim be forced to carry a resulting pregnancy to term.

I agree with most of what you're saying here. But unfortunately, everyone who has learned about sex knows that every time you partake in it there is almost always a chance of pregnancy. Consensual sex is an invitation to the possibility of a child being created. Just like an STD. Unless you specifically protect yourself against it, ie: birth control or abstinence, then you are risking a child being created.

I don't think rape victims should be forced to keep babies. Other than that, though, if the women who support abortions consider it a punishment to keep and raise a child then there are far worse issues at hand here.