• 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!

Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

Gaugingcatenate said:
Wrong.

Where in the constitution does it say anything about requiring an amendment to define personhood? Hint: It doesn t. R v W didnt require any amendments to be passed to condone atrocity; shouldnt, wont need one to stop the atrocities.
Click to expand...

From the following:

Personhood laws are laws designed to extend the legal concept of "personhood" to pre-born humans. Specifically, these laws give legal status as a person to any fertilized human egg, from conception until birth. This includes the zygote before it has implanted, and according to medical science, implantation is the beginning of a pregnancy. This conflicts with the traditional legal position that the unborn child is part of the mother, and its interests are the same as the mother's.[1] These laws constitute one of the newest trends of attack in a long list of ways to make life really hard for American women who actually want to participate in their world by controlling their own reproduction. The attempt to pass such laws is largely restricted to the United States, though Ireland formally maintained a fetus' "right to life equal to that of the mother" until 2018[2].
Click to expand...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Personhood_laws
 
minnie616 said:
I disagree as does Roe, but changing the definition of personhood will not overturn Roe since Roe is based on Right to privacy.

If you wish to define personhood as beginning at conception an admendent to the US Constitution would need to be added.

A few states have to pass personhood amendments but they have failed. Even the very conservative state of Mississippi could not pass a personhood admentment to their state Consitution.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

In the proper balance of the hierarchies of rights in conflict, justice will choose the right to life over mere privacy concerns. When one voluntarily enters into a transaction, in this case sexual relations involving actions that can, many times do lead to conceiving another person, then justice would require that the voluntary subject, not the innocent third party, bear the burden of their own actions.

The vast minority of abortions due to rape are less than 1 %. You dont harm 100% for the voluntary actions of 99%. More importantly, nor should we EVER be punishing those we know with 100 % certainty are the totally innocent.
 
minnie616 said:
From the following:



https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Personhood_laws
Click to expand...

Sorry. Actually no, I am not sorry, whatsoever.

Women have no special right to murder others, even if they created them. Nobody legally, may have that right under our Constitution. They have equal rights and responsibilities as with males in controlling reproduction...use preventative methods and hope for the best. We live in a time of vastly improved methods over the barest meager of techniques in all of prior history.

Our 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Sorry. Actually no, I am not sorry, whatsoever.

Women have no special right to murder others, even if they created them. Nobody legally, may have that right under our Constitution. They have equal rights and responsibilities as with males in controlling reproduction...use preventative methods and hope for the best. We live in a time of vastly improved methods over the barest meager of techniques in all of prior history.

Our 5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

You are talking about personhood again.

And the the 5th Amendment means the government cannot deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process.
 
minnie616 said:
You are talking about personhood again.

And the the 5th Amendment means the government cannot deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And fetal personhood would take an amendment.
 
minnie616 said:
You are talking about personhood again.

And the the 5th Amendment means the government cannot deprive you of life, liberty or property without due process.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Now are you able to align it with my other posts? I am not retyping it all. Understanding of the stated cogencies, not batteries, are required to assemble my kit.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Exactly.

Now are you able to align it with my other posts? I am not retyping it all. Understanding of the stated cogencies, not batteries, are required to assemble my kit.
Click to expand...

No , a fetal personhood Amendment would be needed.
 
tosca1 said:
You can hope. You can dream. Abortion isn't going away - women have been doing that in back alleys and throughout history.

Legalized abortion in the USA will go away.
Click to expand...

No it wont. It would result in an amendment to legalize it. You can't win.

What country would you model us after?
 
vegas giants said:
No it wont. It would result in an amendment to legalize it. You can't win.

What country would you model us after?
Click to expand...

This isn’t about others countries. The Hard Right Puritanical American Authoritarians have finally taken control of America. The American Mullah is arriving and will become the 9 Justices in the SC.

You finally have to accept

The self-righteous, Evangelicals, and Catholics have Civil Rights. That includes the right to tell everybody else how to manage their sexual conduct and reproductive roles...and especially women. 1st Amendment, right? And it’s in the Bible that women be subservient to men and to the Churches who teach people that they have superior morals and they have a duty to force women to have children against their will. Why? Those collection plates need to keep flowing over with money now and in the future.

Welcome to America Made Great Again!
 
tosca1 said:
I was under the impression from pro-choice that Roe vs Wade is a done deal.....but apparently there's only one vote that's
stopping it from being reversed.



https://www.gq.com/story/kennedy-retires-supreme-court-the-fight-is-coming


There's a big chance that Roe vs Wade can be reversed. That depends on who's going to replace Kennedy.


Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are said to be the leading candidates for Supreme Court seat.

Kavanaugh is rumoured to be the favorite. Both of these candidates are quite young.
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade has been on the books for 30 years now. The chances of it being repealed are zilch. The Supremes aren't tone deaf to the uproar with would cause.

It is a "get out the vote" argument. That is all it is.

The choice you must make:
Vote democrat to "protect" from a theoretical vote and receive the collateral damage of:
Back to a moribund economy.
Open borders.
War on police.
Culture war on "those who don't think right".
So you will still have lots of things to hate on about Trump, conservatives, and Republicans, and "people who don't think right", but Row v Wade ain't one of them.

Roe v Wade arguments are the shiny things they through out there to keep your mind off what is important.
 
In theory, yes it can. Case law can be reversed. This was most famously seen in regards to the Brown v. Board of Education which overturned Plessy v Ferguson
 
year2late said:
And RvW would not give the fetus personhood.
Click to expand...
So...?

R v W delineated its idea of what is and isnt personhood. Personhood is dependent on what law, possibly judicial review make it become. Nearly totally, classically subjective. Not science, with its many distancing monikers assigned specifically to make it sound a science so as to gain some false authority to drive the decision.

Science, which only assigns markers chronologizing specific developmental events. Thats all.

I think the identified faults, in logic, law and morality that we, from this side, readily identify and acknowledge make it necessary to review, relitigate this abomination along the lines of Taneys DS decision and the odiously insidious P v F... except the unimaginable loss ( over 50M in US ) of pricelessnesses beyond both.

We have done everything, and beyond, to jump through all the cultural, legal/constitutional and political hoops to get here. We did not hold our tongues, we have that right, and while we pushed hard, from many angles yet with very little physical force but that constant pressure, rare to almost nil the amount of violence, especially with how many millions of caualties inflicted upon our ranks, in relation.

We have gone to the people and gotten ourselves elected, placing ourselves in multiple areas of majority. States and national levels, executive, legislative and soon to be judicial. Plus, to put it diplomatically, RBG will not be on the court forever. Knock on wood we will have a 6 to 3 advantage.

All legal, constitutional, wrapped in a bow. A gift to the nation... and you cant say no.
 
vegas giants said:
Dude you have no precedent anywhere in the world
Click to expand...

Again, slavery was legal EVERYWHERE...until it wasnt.

Just saying, bro, cover you eyes if you choose. See, we didnt take everything away, just what was absolutely necessary...and its your choice to watch it or ignore it.

Choice, ain't America great? Again
 
minnie616 said:
I agree.
It is much more complicated than that.

I would also like to point out that several right to privacy precedents were set before Roe v Wade.
The more precedents, the harder it is to overturn a SC ruling.

It will be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including right to privacy regarding child rearing rights , such as the right for parents to send their children to private or religious schools instead of public schools.

The following Surpreme Court decisions would most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that is not going to happen.


Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
Click to expand...

That is all true, but I think I could show via opinions they have written or joined that Gorsuch and Thomas are willing to discard precedent. I'm sure anyone vetted by the Federalist Society / Heritage will be cut from that cloth. The end justifies means to them, and the end seems to be taking the country back as many years as possible.
 
tosca1 said:
Meh. The typical liberal "guilt-inducing" butchers in alleys/ rusting coat hangers, doesn't wring anything anymore.
They could've prevented it. They made their choice to risk getting pregnant. AND, getting STD! :shrug:


If unwanted pregnancy doesn't faze them - getting STD should.
Click to expand...

It takes 2 to tango but I understand why you hate women so. One of them gave birth to YOU.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So...?

R v W delineated its idea of what is and isnt personhood. Personhood is dependent on what law, possibly judicial review make it become. Nearly totally, classically subjective. Not science, with its many distancing monikers assigned specifically to make it sound a science so as to gain some false authority to drive the decision.

Science, which only assigns markers chronologizing specific developmental events. Thats all.

I think the identified faults, in logic, law and morality that we, from this side, readily identify and acknowledge make it necessary to review, relitigate this abomination along the lines of Taneys DS decision and the odiously insidious P v F... except the unimaginable loss ( over 50M in US ) of pricelessnesses beyond both.

We have done everything, and beyond, to jump through all the cultural, legal/constitutional and political hoops to get here. We did not hold our tongues, we have that right, and while we pushed hard, from many angles yet with very little physical force but that constant pressure, rare to almost nil the amount of violence, especially with how many millions of caualties inflicted upon our ranks, in relation.

We have gone to the people and gotten ourselves elected, placing ourselves in multiple areas of majority. States and national levels, executive, legislative and soon to be judicial. Plus, to put it diplomatically, RBG will not be on the court forever. Knock on wood we will have a 6 to 3 advantage.

All legal, constitutional, wrapped in a bow. A gift to the nation... and you cant say no.
Click to expand...

I think our Founding Fathers made clear what personhood meant.

But feel free to fight on.

I have always thought that the fight to decrease (will never be eliminated) has to do be pragmatic.

We can talk about making it illegal all we want, but the reality is that many women who are pregnant will do anything not to be. The reasons get trivialized but they are usually multifactorial and not trivial (to them). So abortions will happen EN MASSE whether legal or not. So to me, these discussions are actually an exercise in futility.

Making abortions illegal in this day and age is a fools errand. A woman that feels the amazing stress of pregnancy is likely do seek any means to not be pregnant. In this age an underground for the abortion pill would be the way to go. Still risky without medical supervison, but nowhere near as risky as a back alley abortions used to be.

What lacks on the "prolife" side is pragmatism. How do you really prevent abortions? Making them illegal never has and never will prevent most abortions. Hell, abortions were present in Biblical times, yet where is clear mention of the abomination in the Bible?


So what is the pragmatic approach? Prevention of unwanted pregnancy first and foremost. Long term contraception is twice the cost of an abortion. The working poor - too rich for medical, too poor for insurance are the most at risk. That group of women could use this form of contraception and prevent so many abortions.


The other way to prevent abortion is to turn an unwanted pregnancy into a wanted one. A woman needs to feel not just secure for today, but secure in her future. And as the middle class dwindles and housing becomes unaffordable...that is a tough get. In addition, the party that pushes the most against abortion...also pushes against health care for all and many forms of welfare.

But seriously, if a zygote, embryo, or fetus was considered a person.....the implications would be far reaching. Hell, I might just figure out if I have any viable eggs left, and have them fertilized and placed on deep freeze.....I could claim 10 dependents! I am being flippant about that aspect, but the reality is that the biggest implication would be to diminish the rights of a woman. Hell, look at what happened to that dentist in France or even the corpse in Texas - that is what happens when you value the fetus over the woman.


But if it floats your boat to go for fetal personhood....I cannot stop you.
 
vegas giants said:
No it wont. It would result in an amendment to legalize it. You can't win.

What country would you model us after?
Click to expand...

Why do you need a model? :lol: The USA will be the model!

If RvW is reversed......chances are, pro-life in other countries will try their darndest to do the same!
 
year2late said:
What lacks on the "prolife" side is pragmatism. How do you really prevent abortions?
Click to expand...

You can't prevent abortions any more than you can't prevent murder! Or, pedophilia. Or, theft!
Are you saying we should legalize them just because you can't prevent them?? Is that being pragmatic??

If caught, those who violate the law has to answer to them. Should we break the law, or not? That's the decision we have to make. That's the purpose of having laws! That's pragmatism.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Why do you need a model? :lol: The USA will be the model!

If RvW is reversed......chances are, pro-life in other countries will try their darndest to do the same!
Click to expand...

A model for what? The very people wanting to demand that women give birth are frequently the same ones that think decent health care for all Americans should not be a sure thing.
 
iguanaman said:
It takes 2 to tango but I understand why you hate women so. One of them gave birth to YOU.
Click to expand...

Why are you suddenly getting personal? Because, you couldn't rebutt simple common sense, huh?

Stick to the issue.
 
tosca1 said:
Why are you suddenly getting personal? Because, you couldn't rebutt simple common sense, huh?

Stick to the issue.
Click to expand...

I did rebut. Men are equally responsible for unwanted pregnancies but you want to punish women anyway. It's really sick and perverted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom