• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How is Being Anti-Abortion Strict Constitutionalist?

Petyr said:
sorry to bust your liberal happy happy you can do whatever you want bubble your living in.
Click to expand...

all right see ya guys ill get back to you once roe v wade is repealed.
 
Petyr said:
Oh, the Times my bad. I thought it was some liberal anti Trump magazine like the times.
Click to expand...

Every degree (or level) of Conservative, Catholic, and Evangelical Women get abortions.

In other words, women of every religion, political philosophy and affiliation get abortions.

As a man, why are you so anti-abortion - or if you prefer pro-yet to born.
 
calamity said:
Please show me where in the Constitution there is any verbiage stating unborn things have ****ing Rights?

I'll wait.

Anti-abortion judges are radicals legislating from the bench. So, don't try to blow smoke up my ass by saying that judges who go out of their way to protect the unborn are strict constitutionalists. They are not. So, stop lying.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution is abortion guaranteed as a federal right? If not expressly listed in the Constitution it reverts to the states. What is the Constitutional basis for Roe V Wade?
 
Waddy said:
Where in the Constitution is abortion guaranteed as a federal right? If not expressly listed in the Constitution it reverts to the states. What is the Constitutional basis for Roe V Wade?
Click to expand...

From the following Live Science article:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.
Click to expand...
Read more:


From the following Live Science article:

https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html
 
fishnthec said:
No, that has already been decided!

If it is challenged again, it will be because someone's interpretation of the Constitution does not agree the Roe Vs. Wade decision was legal!

The Constitution says what it says- and in places- what it says is interpreted differently from one person to another!

LOL! Even the Justices themselves argue about that all the time!
Click to expand...

That's what I said. It's their job to interpret the Constitution.

The system allows for swings of the pendulum of power.
.
 
Removable Mind said:
Every degree (or level) of Conservative, Catholic, and Evangelical Women get abortions.

In other words, women of every religion, political philosophy and affiliation get abortions.

As a man, why are you so anti-abortion - or if you prefer pro-yet to born.
Click to expand...

Same questions could be asked about you. I thought men were suppose to stay out of women's rights?
 
fishnthec said:
No, that has already been decided!

If it is challenged again, it will be because someone's interpretation of the Constitution does not agree the Roe Vs. Wade decision was legal!

The Constitution says what it says- and in places- what it says is interpreted differently from one person to another!

LOL! Even the Justices themselves argue about that all the time!
Click to expand...

So was separate but equal, yet it was later reversed - did the US constitution change or only the opinions of a majority of our nine robed umpires?
 
Waddy said:
Where in the Constitution is abortion guaranteed as a federal right? If not expressly listed in the Constitution it reverts to the states. What is the Constitutional basis for Roe V Wade?
Click to expand...
Clearly you are clueless on the topic. Where in the Constitution is the power granted to forbid it and based on what?
 
WCH said:
That's what I said. It's their job to interpret the Constitution.

The system allows for swings of the pendulum of power.
.
Click to expand...

Read up on stare decisis.
 
Waddy said:
Where in the Constitution is abortion guaranteed as a federal right? If not expressly listed in the Constitution it reverts to the states. What is the Constitutional basis for Roe V Wade?
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about. Where in the Constitution does it say "If not expressly listed in the Constitution it reverts to the states?" This is the problem with conservatives. You have to lie and distribute disinformation and propaganda. I defy anyone to point to where the Constitution says that something is not expressly listed in the Constitution it reverts to the state.
 
WCH said:
Same questions could be asked about you. I thought men were suppose to stay out of women's rights?
Click to expand...

Why would you think that?

The arguments about abortion focuses on why should governments and religious organizations have the right to intervene and/or control women’s reproductive roles and health?

All I asked was why he holds his beliefs about abortion, which he made clear he opposes it at any stage.

The argument in this thread is about whether or not the SC has the right to make decisions on cases that involves substantive due process rather than procedural due process.

FYI, strict constitutionalist don’t believe in substantive due process. They are like religious fundamentalists, the interpretation must be based solely on the actual words in the Constitution. I consider this perspective as radicalism. Nothing is static. We aren’t the same society with the same social problems that existed when the Constitution was created.
 
jkennedy said:
You don't know what you are talking about. Where in the Constitution does it say "If not expressly listed in the Constitution it reverts to the states?" This is the problem with conservatives. You have to lie and distribute disinformation and propaganda. I defy anyone to point to where the Constitution says that something is not expressly listed in the Constitution it reverts to the state.
Click to expand...

As Bill Engvall says, "Here's your sign",

Tenth Amendment stated: “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.”
Traditionally, these included the “police powers” of health, education, and welfare.
Click to expand...

State Powers | Federalism | Constitution USA | PBS

Being considered a health matter, abortion was traditionally a state issue. Since the majority of states refused to allow abortion on demand, the proponents of abortion took it to the federal courts where they won Roe V Wade. That way they could take away abortion as a state issue.
 
prometeus said:
Clearly you are clueless on the topic. Where in the Constitution is the power granted to forbid it and based on what?
Click to expand...

Here's your sign,

Tenth Amendment stated: “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.”
Traditionally, these included the “police powers” of health, education, and welfare.
Click to expand...

State Powers | Federalism | Constitution USA | PBS
 
Waddy said:
Being considered a health matter, abortion was traditionally a state issue.
Click to expand...
That only gives the states the power to ensure that it is performed in accordance to rules that apply to all health related procedures.

Since the majority of states refused to allow abortion on demand, the proponents of abortion took it to the federal courts where they won Roe V Wade. That way they could take away abortion as a state issue.
Click to expand...
No, it was done because there because nowhere are the states empowered to outlaw it.
 
prometeus said:
That only gives the states the power to ensure that it is performed in accordance to rules that apply to all health related procedures.

No, it was done because there because nowhere are the states empowered to outlaw it.
Click to expand...

It was a state issue until Roe. States could formulate whatever laws they wanted. Even outlaw it completely. It was considered a health issue until the SC made a stretch and claimed it is a "privacy" issue. Quite a stretch in fact.
 
Waddy said:
It was a state issue until Roe. States could formulate whatever laws they wanted. Even outlaw it completely. It was considered a health issue until the SC made a stretch and claimed it is a "privacy" issue. Quite a stretch in fact.
Click to expand...

Family, medical, and reproductive rights are specifically a privacy issue in the 14th Amendment.
 
Waddy said:
It was a state issue until Roe. States could formulate whatever laws they wanted.
Click to expand...
Unitl it was clear that they were overstepping their powers.

Even outlaw it completely.
Click to expand...
That was the abuse of power.

It was considered a health issue
Click to expand...
It still is as are all medical procedures and it has to be performed in accordance to rules and regulations that apply to all medical procedures.

until the SC made a stretch and claimed it is a "privacy" issue.
Click to expand...
It is also a privacy issue.

Quite a stretch in fact.
Click to expand...
What is the stretch? Are you claiming that there is no privacy?
 
prometeus said:
Unitl it was clear that they were overstepping their powers.

That was the abuse of power.

It still is as are all medical procedures and it has to be performed in accordance to rules and regulations that apply to all medical procedures.

It is also a privacy issue.

What is the stretch? Are you claiming that there is no privacy?
Click to expand...

I consider abortion a health issue, not a privacy issue. That's too much of a judicial stretch. If it were a privacy issue then prostitution, drug use and even selling body parts would have to all be legal. However, any cost/benefit analysis is clear; abortion reduces crime, save billions in social services, less strain on the education system, and less overcrowding in prisons. Having said that, I support a woman's right to an abortion; any time, any where. But I also like intellectual honesty. It is a health issue, not a privacy issue. And it is killing an unborn child, your offspring. Now, you can rationalize that and spin it ten ways from Sunday, but it's not intellectually honest.
 
Removable Mind said:
Why would you think that?

The arguments about abortion focuses on why should governments and religious organizations have the right to intervene and/or control women’s reproductive roles and health?

All I asked was why he holds his beliefs about abortion, which he made clear he opposes it at any stage.

The argument in this thread is about whether or not the SC has the right to make decisions on cases that involves substantive due process rather than procedural due process.

FYI, strict constitutionalist don’t believe in substantive due process. They are like religious fundamentalists, the interpretation must be based solely on the actual words in the Constitution. I consider this perspective as radicalism. Nothing is static. We aren’t the same society with the same social problems that existed when the Constitution was created.
Click to expand...

I believe the horror that is abortion is ageless. Justifying and legalizing it are the only thing that is new.
 
Waddy said:
They sure are since Roe.
Click to expand...

Nope, there is a whole list of precedents leading up to that.

Millie has posted the list before. It's pretty long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom