• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nothing from the anti-abortion side will actually make sense within their own arguments. They WILL argue for one thing by arguing for things that don't actually make it better. They will NEVER address this.

This is not by accident.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
You do know that birth control is not perfect, right? Women get pregnant while using "responsible birth control" methods.
.
Click to expand...

There are also people who now and then get pregnant on purpose.

I mean, it shouldn't matter or anything, but if they are worried about the unborn maybe start worrying about the babies who aren't conceived because women will be wary of getting pregnant in a world that limits their autonomy when something goes awry.
 
TomB said:
The U.S. Constitution specifically states that rights exist that are not explicitly mentioned. It's the ninth amendment. It does not say that the states get to arbitrate these rights. The Tenth states that powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states, but it does not give states power over non-enumerated rights.

What this means is that it is within the court's authority to determine that something not mentioned in the Constitution is indeed a right.

From what I've seen of Alito's opinion he is at least is partly incorrect. I'll agree that citing the Fourteenth may be a stretch. But he is absolutely incorrect in that it's lack of mention is relevant. As one of the concurring justices on Roe (Douglas) wrote, the Ninth is a better foundation than the fourteenth.

As for "traditions," tradition is not law. And even then, traditionally, early term abortions were legal. Also, abortion laws were "traditionally" not made to protect the fetus, but rather to protect the health of the mother's health. At the time, women were dying from questionable snake oil drugs and unqualified practitioners. Hence 1870 Illinois law outlawing abortion inducing drugs unless prescribed by a qualified doctor.

So basically, Alito ignores tradition and ignores the part of the constitution that requires judges to...well...judge.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
TomB said:
The U.S. Constitution specifically states that rights exist that are not explicitly mentioned. It's the ninth amendment. It does not say that the states get to arbitrate these rights.
Click to expand...

The 9th amendment is a lot more complicated than that....the ninth amendment clearly empowers infringement of unenumerated rights.
 
TomB said:
A statement which requires the court to disregard a portion of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Indeed, or at least, very possibly.

The Ninth amendment angle is an interesting one because at the time the Constitution was written, abortion was generally not illegal. I think, though I would have to look up the details, abortions were considered legal until the time of "quickening", i.e. the point in time where a woman can feel the fetus moving in the womb.

I'm not sure this was uniform in all thirteen states, or what happened as new states were admitted to the union.
 
9th amendment

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

That means one can deny or disparage rights retained by the people if the argument isn't dependent on the enumeration of rights in the constitution....that remains permitted.
 
BobTheCoward said:
9th amendment



That means one can deny or disparage rights retained by the people if the argument isn't dependent on the enumeration of rights in the constitution....that remains permitted.
Click to expand...

That's a possible interpretation.

Those guys really did not have a clue how significant each and every word they wrote would be.
 
TomB said:
The U.S. Constitution specifically states that rights exist that are not explicitly mentioned. It's the ninth amendment. It does not say that the states get to arbitrate these rights. The Tenth states that powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states, but it does not give states power over non-enumerated rights.

What this means is that it is within the court's authority to determine that something not mentioned in the Constitution is indeed a right.

From what I've seen of Alito's opinion he is at least is partly incorrect. I'll agree that citing the Fourteenth may be a stretch. But he is absolutely incorrect in that it's lack of mention is relevant. As one of the concurring justices on Roe (Douglas) wrote, the Ninth is a better foundation than the fourteenth.

As for "traditions," tradition is not law. And even then, traditionally, early term abortions were legal. Also, abortion laws were "traditionally" not made to protect the fetus, but rather to protect the health of the mother's health. At the time, women were dying from questionable snake oil drugs and unqualified practitioners. Hence 1870 Illinois law outlawing abortion inducing drugs unless prescribed by a qualified doctor.

So basically, Alito ignores tradition and ignores the part of the constitution that requires judges to...well...judge.
Click to expand...
Here's some of the complexification (if I may) for the 9th amendment:
The Ninth Amendment, like its companion, the Tenth, which this Court held "states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered", United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 312 U.S. 124, was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today, no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annul a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder.
Click to expand...
Justice Potter Stewart, source
 
BobTheCoward said:
cosmicaug said:
If it was about the babies:
https://twitter.com/leilacohan/status/1521690766187237377
Click to expand...
Why? Why does the position that a baby shouldnt be murdered means they must have healthcare?

Does every pro choice argument have to completely ignore the position of the other side?
Click to expand...

Is the position that "babies"* should not be murdered or that they should not be killed? We start with an is vs. ought issue here: murder is a legal term so as long as we are talking about legal abortions there are no murders being committed (even if it were illegal, if could be something else as one could envision a great variety of prohibitionist regimes —but that would be yet another digression). Indeed, that's what anti-abortionists want to change.

So the position must be that they think "babies" should not be killed (and that this should be legally codified —one way, probably the way many might prefer, would involve classifying abortion as murder).

If they care about babies not being killed in one context, why should it not follow that they should also care about babies not being killed in different contexts?



* Let's set aside the whether we are even talking about "babies".
 
cosmicaug said:
Is the position that "babies"* should not be murdered or that they should not be killed? We start with an is vs. ought issue here: murder is a legal term so as long as we are talking about legal abortions there are no murders being committed (even if it were illegal, if could be something else as one could envision a great variety of prohibitionist regimes —but that would be yet another digression). Indeed, that's what anti-abortionists want to change.

So the position must be that they think "babies" should not be killed (and that this should be legally codified —one way, probably the way many might prefer, would involve classifying abortion as murder).

If they care about babies not being killed in one context, why should it not follow that they should also care about babies not being killed in different contexts?



* Let's set aside the whether we are even talking about "babies".
Click to expand...

Drawing the line is the the thing that people do everyday with people generally. It is aligned with viewing the fetus as a human, because people are perfectly content to draw a line between acceptable killing indirectly versus killing directly.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Sad to say, some people on the left hate the US so much they think that Russia and China would be better..........we have a couple who post here
Click to expand...

The enemy of my enemy must be my friend is a compelling argument for some people. I don't think there are many people who think China or Russia would be better than the US. That said, there are some areas where China is ahead of the US, eg it's more proactive on climate change, but some people get annoyed when you talk about it.
 
Love him or hate, him, Michael Moore has an excellent piece on the ruling here:

https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/forced-birth-ruling?s=r

One hundred seventy million American women and girls were suddenly informed on Monday that they have been removed from the ranks of full citizenship, and that their rights are now diminished so severely they will heretofore be commanded to give birth, whether they want to or not.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
All supreme court rulings are settled law, until they are overturned by a later court. This is hardly the first time it's happened.

ETA: and what exactly do you think "settled law" even means? If it has any meaning at all, it's that the Supreme Court's ruling on the issue is clear, and lower courts know exactly what to do with it. Which was true regarding Roe v. Wade. It was true for Plessy v. Ferguson too for quite some time. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court cannot change their minds about it. That's never been the case.
Click to expand...
This is a typical 'full of it' answer.

They lied. Listen to their actual statements out of their actual mouths. All five of them, they've been playing the clips from their confirmation hearings on the news. They outright lied and anyone not practicing alt-right apologetics can see they lied.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is a typical 'full of it' answer.

They lied. Listen to their actual statements out of their actual mouths. All five of them, they've been playing the clips from their confirmation hearings on the news. They outright lied and anyone not practicing alt-right apologetics can see they lied.
Click to expand...

And now watch how much he will refuse to address this.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is a typical 'full of it' answer.

They lied. Listen to their actual statements out of their actual mouths. All five of them, they've been playing the clips from their confirmation hearings on the news. They outright lied and anyone not practicing alt-right apologetics can see they lied.
Click to expand...

I watched the video. That isn't lying.
 
Ziggurat said:
All supreme court rulings are settled law, until they are overturned by a later court. This is hardly the first time it's happened.

ETA: and what exactly do you think "settled law" even means? If it has any meaning at all, it's that the Supreme Court's ruling on the issue is clear, and lower courts know exactly what to do with it. Which was true regarding Roe v. Wade. It was true for Plessy v. Ferguson too for quite some time. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court cannot change their minds about it. That's never been the case.
Click to expand...

Yes but these individuals weren't being asked to speculate on hypothetical scenarios or the generalities of courts at large. They were asked specifically about their own, personal opinions about this specific law, and their own personal intentions should they be confirmed as members of the present court.

And it is now clear they were either deliberately being evasive or openly lying about their intentions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom