• 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!

Would you die in poverty if Roe v Wade is overturned?

Robertinfremont said:
How would a person go about reversing a well known supreme court decision?
Click to expand...

Go to law school,serve as a judge,get nominated and confirmed to SCOTUS,then vote to reverse a well known SCOTUS court decision.
 
Robertinfremont said:
That won't work since I heard what he told the Senate.

That also ducks my question.

Can you think of a previous supreme court case that was evaded since the one declaring income taxes are not legal?

Congress bypassed it by creating an amendment.

Hint, when Obama was in charge, he or the congress could have put the ruling of Roe V Wade into permanent law. They chose not to.
Click to expand...

Kavanaugh dodged that question and numerous others.
 
Logician Man said:
Go to law school,serve as a judge,get nominated and confirmed to SCOTUS,then vote to reverse a well known SCOTUS court decision.
Click to expand...

Only if it can wind up the lower courts and then be adjudicated again. But that looks highly unlikely. I hate Roe v Wade but lost hope it will be changed.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
If you want to end poverty and teenage pregnancy, you got to accept abortions.
Click to expand...

If you want to end poverty, let parents kill their kids up to the legal age the kids become adults. Teens cost more to upkeep than infants.
 
Robertinfremont said:
Only if it can wind up the lower courts and then be adjudicated again. But that looks highly unlikely. I hate Roe v Wade but lost hope it will be changed.
Click to expand...

Roe VS Wade shouldn't be changed.That would deprive more than 1/2 of the U.S. population of their basic civil rights. ( bodily autonomy )
 
Robertinfremont said:
If you want to end poverty, let parents kill their kids up to the legal age the kids become adults. Teens cost more to upkeep than infants.
Click to expand...

You are certainly a fine example of the pro-life perspective with such an irrational, hyperbolic statement.

It's a stance that isnt often realistic in terms of practical application in the real world.
 
Robertinfremont said:
If you want to end poverty, let parents kill their kids up to the legal age the kids become adults. Teens cost more to upkeep than infants.
Click to expand...

That’s totally illlogical. And by that analogy, murder would become legal, no matter the reason.

You’re really grasping at strawmen now.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
If you had the choice of dying in poverty if Roe v Wade is overturned?

Please explain your feelings. Thank you.
Click to expand...
If oranges were purple would you drive on the other side of the street?


You're question is nonsensical.
 
HumblePi said:
The possible reversal of Roe v Wade doesn't concern me personally although I firmly believe that all people, yes even women, have a right to choose what they do with their own body and no court of law should have the power to make that decision for her.

The real concern that I have with Kavanaugh is that he has indicated in past decisions that a sitting president should not be indicted and is immune from prosecution. Think about that just for a minute. That would literally dissolve the rule that 'no man is above the law'. It's saying that yes, someone is above the law and can't be prosecuted if they break any law and that's the president. Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and he would be untouchable legally according to Kavanaugh's way of thinking. If Kavanaugh is sitting on the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, and he's asked to hear argument as to whether Trump can be indicted for collusion, abuse of power or conspiracy, that he would lean towards a decision that would possibly be detrimental to this country.

Going even further, Brian Kavanaugh doesn't feel that a U.S. president should be the subject of an FBI investigation.

See where this is going? It's not only about Roe v Wade that's making people on both sides nervous.
Click to expand...
There a thing called "high crimes and misdemeanors", I'm pretty sure murder, even in NYC. would meet that requirement.



You libs worry about the most idiotic things. :roll:
 
Amelia said:
That's an interesting question. If want abortion to be made illegal, or highly restricted such as only being allowed if the mother would literally die if an abortion weren't performed in the next 48 hours, what would you be willing to give up in exchange for that happening?
Click to expand...
I think that could easily be worked out. If you look at most pro/anti abortion polls the number who say abortion should never be allowed in any circumstance is not very large. Health of the mother is an obvious criterion that I think a large majority would support along with rape or incest. There are pragmatic solutions out there once with get around "my way or the highway" types on either side.
 
Bullseye said:
I think that could easily be worked out. If you look at most pro/anti abortion polls the number who say abortion should never be allowed in any circumstance is not very large. Health of the mother is an obvious criterion that I think a large majority would support along with rape or incest. There are pragmatic solutions out there once with get around "my way or the highway" types on either side.
Click to expand...


It is my opinion that the pragmatic path had already been chosen.

But rightwingers -- including the Tea Party which was supposed to be focused on the economy but instead jumped in on abortion -- these righwingers have spent the last 8 years pushing through laws which are pushing us toward extremes, trying to get a test case to a Supreme Court to give them a springboard to reexamine Roe v. Wade.
 
Bullseye said:
There a thing called "high crimes and misdemeanors", I'm pretty sure murder, even in NYC. would meet that requirement.



You libs worry about the most idiotic things. :roll:
Click to expand...

If you believe that a president is NOT above the law then call us 'libs' idiots.
 
Amelia said:
It is my opinion that the pragmatic path had already been chosen.
Click to expand...
Fine, everyone's entitled to an opinion.

Amelia said:
But rightwingers -- including the Tea Party which was supposed to be focused on the economy but instead jumped in on abortion -- these righwingers have spent the last 8 years pushing through laws which are pushing us toward extremes, trying to get a test case to a Supreme Court to give them a springboard to reexamine Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
LOL, I can
't argue against Prog paranoia.
 
HumblePi said:
If you believe that a president is NOT above the law then call us 'libs' idiots.
Click to expand...
And you think it's logical that Trump is going to shoot someone on Fifth avenue in NYC? And that's NOT "idiotic"? I wasn't calling "you libs" idiotic, I was calling the idea that he'd actually do it idiotic.
 
Bullseye said:
And you think it's logical that Trump is going to shoot someone on Fifth avenue in NYC? And that's NOT "idiotic"? I wasn't calling "you libs" idiotic, I was calling the idea that he'd actually do it idiotic.
Click to expand...

It is an idiotic idea.But it was Trump's idea to declare it.So it's really not surprising coming from the Idiot-in-Chief.
 
Logician Man said:
It is an idiotic idea.But it was Trump's idea to declare it.So it's really not surprising coming from the Idiot-in-Chief.
Click to expand...
Even MORE idiotic to repeat it in the context of Roe v. Wade.
 
Bullseye said:
It is my opinion that the pragmatic path had already been chosen.
Click to expand...

Fine, everyone's entitled to an opinion.

But rightwingers -- including the Tea Party which was supposed to be focused on the economy but instead jumped in on abortion -- these righwingers have spent the last 8 years pushing through laws which are pushing us toward extremes, trying to get a test case to a Supreme Court to give them a springboard to reexamine Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

LOL, I can
't argue against Prog paranoia.
Click to expand...


Sure. Prog paranoia. That's it.

I helped elect Tea Party candidates. For example, Ron Johnson here in Wisconsin. I voted for Scott Walker three times. Then with my Republican eyes I watched Republicans in Congress do nothing to help the economy, but try to push through restrictive abortion legislation dozens of times. I watched my state pass legislation to restrict women's reproductive choices. I watched Scott Walker flip from his moderate stances on abortion, immigration, climate change, etc. to ones calculated to earn him far right votes in the 2016 election.

And then I quit being a Republican because of their pretense of having economic priorities when their actual priorities were (a) restrict abortion access and (b) block any legislation which would help the jobless, homeless or veterans because the GOP didn't want Obama to get credit.


No, not prog paranoia. The front row seat of a lifelong Republican who watched her party get more and more extreme until she couldn't pretend anymore and departed.
 
Amelia said:
Sure. Prog paranoia. That's it.

I helped elect Tea Party candidates. For example, Ron Johnson here in Wisconsin. I voted for Scott Walker three times. Then with my Republican eyes I watched Republicans in Congress do nothing to help the economy, but try to push through restrictive abortion legislation dozens of times. I watched my state pass legislation to restrict women's reproductive choices. I watched Scott Walker flip from his moderate stances on abortion, immigration, climate change, etc. to ones calculated to earn him far right votes in the 2016 election.

And then I quit being a Republican because of the pretense of having economic priorities when the actual priorities were (a) restrict legislation and (b) block any legislation which would help the jobless, homeless or veterans because they didn't want Obama to get credit.


No, not prog paranoia. The front row seat of a lifelong Republican who watched her party get more and more extreme until she couldn't pretend anymore and departed.
Click to expand...
Nah, no Prog paranoia except for this entire post. Just listen to yourself.
 
Amelia said:
It is my opinion that the pragmatic path had already been chosen.

But rightwingers -- including the Tea Party which was supposed to be focused on the economy but instead jumped in on abortion -- these righwingers have spent the last 8 years pushing through laws which are pushing us toward extremes, trying to get a test case to a Supreme Court to give them a springboard to reexamine Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

Laws are reviewed all the time. SCOTUS has overturned several former decisions. That is the way our democracy works.
 
Bullseye said:
Nah, no Prog paranoia except for this entire post. Just listen to yourself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't need a Trump apologist defining me.

You'll keep trying, but I know who I am.


Thanks for getting personal though. I was surprised that you made a substantive, nonpersonal post, on the subject of abortion no less, so I decided to take a chance and respond to you. Then you quickly went back to your typical form, and now I will move on again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom