Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[TexasTiger 12,835]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

So let me get you on record here. FIVE REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUSTICES arent fundies and arent THE PROBLEM 100% of the time? Kudos, I know that really really really chafes a completely partisan hack job like yourself. 

This is what you resort to when an argument is over your head.

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

This is what you resort to when an argument is over your head.

The argument didnt go over my head. I am trying to get the board to see the reality is not gloom and doom.

The reality is the states can now do what they want.

[AUDub 11,147]

14 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

The argument didnt go over my head. I am trying to get the board to see the reality is not gloom and doom.

The reality is the states can now do what they want.

"It's ok for Alabama to treat women as second class citizens because New York won't"

That's you. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

"It's ok for Alabama to treat women as second class citizens because New York won't"

That's you. 

Not exactly, but close.

It is okay that Democratic Processes yield what the majority in those areas wish. I dont like the Alabama statutes at all. I am beginning to wonder why the hell i live here anymore. If it werent for family obligations, I would be gone. I want basically the MS Law, which is what 61% of America want. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by DKW 86

[TexasTiger 12,835]

26 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

The argument didnt go over my head. I am trying to get the board to see the reality is not gloom and doom.

The reality is the states can now do what they want.

That’s how slavery used to work.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

35 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

The argument didnt go over my head. I am trying to get the board to see the reality is not gloom and doom.

The reality is the states can now do what they want.

Clearly the founders intentions.  States rights over the rights of the individual.

Maybe the founders should have been more concerned with county rights.  Hard to believe they could not foresee the world we live in.  Point being, where/how do you draw the lines of democracy have everything to do with whether or not people are living in "democracy".

Now, the larger point being, freedom and democracy aren't the same thing.  Should a state have a right over it's female population or, should a woman have a basic protected right?  Moreover, if a bunch of predominately male politicians are deciding, is it even freedom or democracy we are discussing.  Aren't we just back to the concepts of power, ideology, theology?

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by icanthearyou

[DKW 86 7,419]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s how slavery used to work.

`Really, why didnt you just call me a Nazi and get it over with. 

Slavery in 21st Century America? Dude, you need serious help.

[DKW 86 7,419]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Clearly the founders intentions.  States rights over the rights of the individual.

Maybe the founders should have been more concerned with county rights.  Hard to believe they could not foresee the world we live in.  Point being, where/how do you draw the lines of democracy have everything to do with whether or not people are living in "democracy".

Now, the larger point being, freedom and democracy aren't the same thing.  Should a state have a right over it's female population or, should a woman have a basic protected right?  Moreover, if a bunch of predominately male politicians are deciding, is it even freedom or democracy we are discussing.  Aren't we just back to the concepts of power, ideology, theology?

It is not state's rights over the individual. It has simply been sent to a more local level. Look, the idiots in DC had 49 years to fix this s***. Blame them. I am just a hick that wants to escape from Deliverance Alabama.

We all know what is going to happen. The HOR and the Senate will not even talk about this. They failed for 49 years to fix this in a DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE MANNER. That is on them. It is why we send them to DC.

[homersapien 11,367]

17 hours ago, AUDub said:

People that are actually "anti-abortion" take steps that will actually reduce abortion, not put desperate women in a postion where a coathanger is appealing. 

They don't want to "reduce" abortion, they want to eliminate it.

They are not intelligent enough, or honest enough, or too deep in denial to understand that's not realistic so they just settle for making life as miserable as possible for (poor) women who seek one.

The practical result is more misery, more poverty and more abortions. 

But they feel good about themselves, which is ultimately all they care about.

 

[TexasTiger 12,835]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

`Really, why didnt you just call me a Nazi and get it over with. 

Slavery in 21st Century America? Dude, you need serious help.

🙄🤦‍♂️

[DKW 86 7,419]

5 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

🙄🤦‍♂️

Oh no...not the dreaded three Xs....

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

They don't want to "reduce" abortion, they want to eliminate it.

They are not intelligent enough, or honest enough, or too deep in denial to understand that's not realistic so they just settle for making life as miserable as possible for (poor) women who seek one.

The practical result is more misery, more poverty and more abortions. 

But they feel good about themselves, which is ultimately all they care about.

 

That has to be the agenda.  It was always a crafted message to coalesce the religious right.  If there were any compromise, there could be no manipulation.

[AU9377 4,928]

On 6/25/2022 at 4:21 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

I think you’re mistaken. The US Solicitor General, during oral argument, was specifically asked what the actual right was. Listen to her response (start at 1:26:00).

 

In Roe, the court got to its decision by using a woman's right to privacy.  Since that decision, other cases have suggested other reasoning to uphold Roe.  The solicitor is attempting to throw the kitchen sink at the Court in her argument and claiming several different grounds, any of which she believes justifies Roe being affirmed. 

By her doing that, she muddles the discussion, in my opinion.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 6/25/2022 at 5:08 PM, TexasTiger said:

I cited common law precedent. You’re citing right wing talking points. Keeping  your legal training on ice or is it on display? 😉

And Hitler could make trains run on time.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

In Roe, the court got to its decision by using a woman's right to privacy.  Since that decision, other cases have suggested other reasoning to uphold Roe.  The solicitor is attempting to throw the kitchen sink at the Court in her argument and claiming several different grounds, any of which she believes justifies Roe being affirmed. 

By her doing that, she muddles the discussion, in my opinion.

I think post-Roe decisions underscore how poor a decision Roe was in terms of objective legal reasoning. I think the same about post-Miranda decisions. Not to open a can of worms…. Just my opinion.

[SaltyTiger 7,794]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

They don't want to "reduce" abortion, they want to eliminate it.

They are not intelligent enough, or honest enough, or too deep in denial to understand that's not realistic so they just settle for making life as miserable as possible for (poor) women who seek one.

The practical result is more misery, more poverty and more abortions. 

But they feel good about themselves, which is ultimately all they care about.

 

Sure, they would love to see needless abortion eliminated.

All else said nothing more than your opinion and attitude.

Edited June 27, 2022 by SaltyTiger

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/25/2022 at 7:18 AM, I_M4_AU said:

So, you have no solution, you just want to complain.  

I literally gave you a solution albeit a bad one.

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/25/2022 at 10:32 AM, I_M4_AU said:

If I read this correctly (after all I am not a lawyer) you bring up pregnancy due to rape and incest is a *straw man* argument.  Is this correct?

Not at all.  Bringing up rape/child molestation did not exaggerate your argument to such an extreme that it fails to be the same argument. If I had said "because you are pro-life then you must support no abortions for rape/CM victims" it would be a straw-man. 

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/25/2022 at 12:26 PM, homersapien said:

I agree the argument is wrong, but IMO, the only way it can be "attacked" is by removing the people responsible for it. 

"Originalism" is nothing more than a rationale to reject any given unenumerated rights.  For them, any right not specifically mentioned in the constitution can be rejected.  Unenumerated rights and the 14 amendment be damned.

Bottom line, they do not recognize the right to privacy to begin with.  And you'll never convince them the right to an abortion can be justified using their own standard of "originalism", even if you are intellectually, logically and historically correct.

The only solution is to replace these judges with people who acknowledge the fundamental rights in question (autonomy, privacy) as valid according to the same constitution.

 

 

Originalists are all fun and games until you realized their rational would take away so many protections provided against police that are unenumerated but derived from the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/25/2022 at 1:07 PM, wdefromtx said:

I want to know why y’all are so upset about one’s own body and a right to privacy now, but at the same time so upset with people that didn’t want to get a Covid shot because.,..well shouldn’t we be entitled to a right to privacy when it comes to our own body. 
 

I don’t think they should have overturned it. Things to me were fine just the way they were and not an issue I think we should be spending so much time on. But it’s damn funny watching the hypocrisy come out in full force. 

Another wonderful example of a straw-man

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/25/2022 at 2:05 PM, GoAU said:

Given that we’ve had 50 years since Rowe, and concern from both sides about the merit of the  case, I can’t think of why our elected officials haven’t made any attempt to codify it.  
 

Leaving my personal beliefs aside, let’s assume most people feel the correct answer for abortion is somewhere between “no abotions at all”  and third trimester/ partial birth abortions?  
 

instead, the nation is left swinging back and forth and no one is happy - a significant understatement.  
 

Assume we can draw the line at a heartbeat or brain formation- would that satisfy most?   That handles those that have errors in judgment, poor planning, failed contraception, rape and most other reasons.   For medical conditions putting the mothers life at risk, or severe birth defects beyond this period would require medical review by 2 or more doctors.  I think this sort of compromise would be reasonable and although the extremists on both side would be left without complete satisfaction, it could certainly be seen as an improvement.  
 

The obvious downsides are that some states that allow completely unrestricted abortion at any time would feel a restriction and other states that have basically banned abortion would feel they are giving up state rights.   
 

Would most find this acceptable?   Just curious about whether a compromise has any chance at all?

I think most reasonable pro-choice people would be fine with abortion limited to a time period that allows women to know they are pregnant and make an informed choice to abort or not.  Probably sometime between 6-12 weeks.  If you go to low say like 4 weeks, most women won't find out they are pregnant until its past the time they can get an abortion.

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/25/2022 at 3:16 PM, homersapien said:

Right, because that's such a good analogy. 

Forcing a woman to have a baby against her interests is exactly like criticizing people for choosing to not getting vaccinated.

What an idiotic post.

 

It's such a "good" analogy because it is a strawman and people that don't know anything about debate think that strawmen arguments are great when they are inherently a logical fallacy.

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/25/2022 at 3:44 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

I wonder if the Court will ever “recognize” the constitutional right to bigamy, incest, bestiality, and whatever other future rights that could be floating in the ether. Rest assured, five justices draped in black robes are at the steering wheel. We should just do away with the amendment clause; it’s too inconvenient.

Well the Court strictly ruled that laws banning bigamy, and incest as constitutional but I shouldn't expect you to know important SCOTUS cases when we are discussing SCOTUS cases.

[Didba 5,256]

22 hours ago, AUDub said:

People that are actually "anti-abortion" take steps that will actually reduce abortion, not put desperate women in a postion where a coathanger is appealing. 

They really care about the life of the baby up until its born then its "you want my tax dollars for WHAT?"

[Didba 5,256]

13 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Touche' And I on yours....And yet I respect your right to comment, without exception. My comments about you not posting was totally with tongue in cheek.

This is off base a bit but I had a guy in the AU baseball forum on this site tell me I needed to stop telling him to shut up and go read the first amendment because I clearly didn't understand the constitution and I was like... "Bruh, I am a private citizen AND a law school graduate, you need to go read the constitution because it only applies to the government."