Destroyer
God
What in the world does that have to do with Roe vs Wade? Your train jumped off the tracks again.
.
Roe-Wade Woman’s right of choice
- Thread starter bgreene
- Start date
What in the world does that have to do with Roe vs Wade? Your train jumped off the tracks again.
.
Destroyer - you’re clearly obsessed with me - checking on my background - what I do for a living etc ….. your doctor would likely suggest you stay off this site for a while and take up basket weaving
Destroyer
God
You would like that wouldn't you? I poke so many holes in your silly posts. One thing though.... I haven't checked on your background. YOU told me what you do long ago.
.
Pipe_Dream
God
I'm not going to go into the motivation for the unprecedented leak at this time.
But this is a decent overview of Alito's draft opinion, despite being posted at Politico.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/abortion-draft-supreme-court-opinion-key-passages-00029470
I am cautiously optimistic.
And who’s going to adopt all the low income babies born of the poor that can’t afford travel to states allowing abortion ? You pipe dream ? And these unfortunate poor babies will grow up as addition drain on the economy - likely having poor babies again themselves . You going to pay more for welfare ?
scook
God
A start would be to address the hideous adoption process. Our family’s experience is that with many multiple thousands of dollars into the process, attempting to adopt (and getting very close - one baby actually in the care of the family members and then taken back from the adoptive dad’s arms by a social,worker) both were reverted back to pretty irresponsible mothers. It was a gut wrenching, horrible experience, trying to adopt and give a good life to these two babies of color. Then thousands more into the process, miraculously, a baby was able to be adopted and he’s an absolute joy to all of our family. I think the whole thing took three or four years, took north of $65k and was an extremely emotionally abusive process. Fortunately, there were lots of donations of resources and a lot of people praying and giving active support through the process.
I’d suggest working to make that process something that normal people with normal financial resources can actually have a chance of accomplishing before thinking that killing babies (people) is an OK thing to do as a usual and customary way of dealing with the problem.
You want to throw government money (our money) at problems - that wouldn’t be a bad, or inefficient, place to put some of it.
I’d suggest working to make that process something that normal people with normal financial resources can actually have a chance of accomplishing before thinking that killing babies (people) is an OK thing to do as a usual and customary way of dealing with the problem.
You want to throw government money (our money) at problems - that wouldn’t be a bad, or inefficient, place to put some of it.
Pipe_Dream
God
Bless you and your family for giving him a chance in life.
Pipe_Dream
God
"Drain on the economy?"
It appears that life is cheap to you. Sad.
But the crux of the opinion, if you would bother to read it instead of merely reacting to a headline, is that the Supreme Court should never have ruled in favor of "Roe" to begin with.
Life begins at conception according to scientific consensus. Every life is precious, even an unwanted life.
Even MSB Joe Biden understands that we're talking about "a child" here.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1521520576409608193
Indeed. That "cluster of cells" are human cells, and are developing into a functioning human, not a turnip. But then again, the turnip potential could explain the mental deficiencies attendant with liberal politics.
Destroyer
God
The MAJORITY of Americans do not understand the damage done to our nation by Roe and later by Casey where 7 justices cut out of whole cloth something the Constitution doesn't say. There is no Constitutional right to abortion since nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the word abortion, yet in Roe the justices made their own interpterion of what they thought the Constitution said, rather than what is actually says.
By reversing Roe v Wade it will correct this very grievous error and the downright sloppy (SCOTUS words not mine) judgement that Federalized abortion and took the right of self determination out of the hands of the people and put it in the hands of the Federal Government. Reversing Roe will restore Democracy by letting people in each state vote on whether or not they want abortion to be legal or illegal in their state. That's called Democracy.
Understand, I am not debating on the morality of abortion. That's a discussion for another day. I'm simple showing why reversing Roe is a good thing for the SCOTUS to do since it corrects a horrible error and overreach of authority by a previous court.
.
Last edited:
What you likely DONT KNOW ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF UPHOLDING ROE-WADE
FACTS - NOT OPINION from Constitutional Lawyer:
…”There is no stated right to privacy in the US Constitution. None. The document is silent on the issue.
In Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court found that the right to privacy can be inferred through various provisions of the US Constitution, ie 4th amendment (warrant required for searches), 5th amendment (right to remain silent), etc. As such, the Court held that a woman has a right to privacy regarding her body and pregnancy up and until viability of the fetus. (I am aware that this highly simplifies abortion law.)
SO - If Roe v. Wade is overturned, not only will it overturn abortion rights, it also will overturn privacy rights because there is no guaranteed right to privacy anywhere in the US Constitution.
Therefore, if you think overturning this decision doesn’t concern you, and the issue is solely about abortion, you are incorrect.
It concerns everyone ! “
FACTS - NOT OPINION from Constitutional Lawyer:
…”There is no stated right to privacy in the US Constitution. None. The document is silent on the issue.
In Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court found that the right to privacy can be inferred through various provisions of the US Constitution, ie 4th amendment (warrant required for searches), 5th amendment (right to remain silent), etc. As such, the Court held that a woman has a right to privacy regarding her body and pregnancy up and until viability of the fetus. (I am aware that this highly simplifies abortion law.)
SO - If Roe v. Wade is overturned, not only will it overturn abortion rights, it also will overturn privacy rights because there is no guaranteed right to privacy anywhere in the US Constitution.
Therefore, if you think overturning this decision doesn’t concern you, and the issue is solely about abortion, you are incorrect.
It concerns everyone ! “
scook
God
First, what you refer to is absolutely a legal opinion. There is no stated right to privacy, per se, but yes, it can be reasonably inferred from the 4th and 5th amendments, where it’s a reasonable application.
Your argument is what the left has come up with to discredit the decision. The problem with the argument is that it conflates the “right” to kill babies (if they aren’t yet viable outside the womb) with unreasonable search and seizure and self incrimination. A logical progression of that reasoning is that when grandpa gets to where he needs help getting his food, maybe bathing and dressing (even though he’s still a vital source of wisdom for his adoring grandchildren), if he’s too much trouble, kill him.
The destruction of reasonable privacy protection by this ruling is an argument by liberals to try to gain support for resistance - fomenting panic in their base to motivate them.
Your argument is what the left has come up with to discredit the decision. The problem with the argument is that it conflates the “right” to kill babies (if they aren’t yet viable outside the womb) with unreasonable search and seizure and self incrimination. A logical progression of that reasoning is that when grandpa gets to where he needs help getting his food, maybe bathing and dressing (even though he’s still a vital source of wisdom for his adoring grandchildren), if he’s too much trouble, kill him.
The destruction of reasonable privacy protection by this ruling is an argument by liberals to try to gain support for resistance - fomenting panic in their base to motivate them.
Nope - it’s fact specific to the constitutional data
scook
God
You sound like a kid who’s trying to impress people by using bigger words than he understands. Constitutional data, what’s that?
How is it not opinion (are you aware that what your constitutional expert wrote is actually called a legal opinion) to conclude that overturning one ruling which was based on certain inferences will automatically keep those inferences from ever being used again in more reasonable applications?
You are punching well above your weight, making these proclamations. You are, as has been pointed out repeatedly by several others, swallowing the liberal doctrine without critical thinking.
How is it not opinion (are you aware that what your constitutional expert wrote is actually called a legal opinion) to conclude that overturning one ruling which was based on certain inferences will automatically keep those inferences from ever being used again in more reasonable applications?
You are punching well above your weight, making these proclamations. You are, as has been pointed out repeatedly by several others, swallowing the liberal doctrine without critical thinking.