• 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!

Yes, Anti-Aborts are Crazy

ecofarm said:
Your response is always "read the article". You can't ever explain any of it because you don't understand any of it. Hell, you probably didn't even read it because you know you will not understand it. You just copy/paste other people's arguments to make yourself feel learned.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel the need to insult others. My invitation to read the column stands.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm sorry you feel the need to insult others. My invitation to read the column stands.
Click to expand...

Don't snowflake on us. My evaluation is of your posts and not you personally. But you can't deal with these facts, can you? You're gonna pretend copy/pasting blogs and opinions constitutes contribution. Like people can't google. Thanks for googling for us. We really needed that.

Keep ignorantly shilling. Like that proves something.

And let me know if you can ever present a position yourself.
 
ecofarm said:
Don't snowflake on us. My evaluation is of your posts and not you personally. But you can't deal with these facts, can you? You're gonna pretend copy/pasting blogs and opinions constitutes contribution. Like people can't google. Thanks for googling for us. We really needed that.

Keep ignorantly shilling. Like that proves something.
Click to expand...

Good luck in your future endeavors.
 
vegas giants said:
Opinion noted and dismissed
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
It's encouraging uneducated scum. Same as in climate.
Click to expand...

. . . Which makes this a good time for the left to step back and ask whether it was ever a good idea to urge such sweeping powers on unelected judges. The benefit of going the judicial route is that you can occasionally achieve outcomes you could never obtain through legislatures; that is how America, a center-right nation, got one of the most liberal abortion regimes in the world. The problem with going the judicial route is that it short-circuits public debate and forces the opposition to take radical action — like, say, a decades-long project to fill the courts with right-leaning judges — to amend that “settled law.”. . .
If the Supreme Court hadn’t intervened on abortion, political debate might have sorted voters along a spectrum, rather than forcing them into the unforgiving yes-no binary. And if you fear you’re about to end up on the wrong side of that binary, you might wish your side had settled for something less grandiose, but more enduring.

The Supreme Court should have never intervened on abortion
 
:lamo
 
Jack Hays said:
And that is the problem. Roe is at risk.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt Roe is at risk because Roe is based on our Constitutional Right to privacy.

If states want a right to ban abortion before viability they will need to add a personhood amendment to their state constitution.

From Live Science:

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:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
I highly doubt Roe is at risk because Roe is based on our Constitutional Right to privacy.

If states want a right to ban abortion before viability they will need to add a personhood amendment to their state constitution.

From Live Science:



Read more:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
Click to expand...

Please see the link in #243. That right is based on a SCOTUS decision. What SCOTUS grants, SCOTUS can take away.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see the link in #243. That right is based on a SCOTUS decision. What SCOTUS grants, SCOTUS can take away.
Click to expand...



The Supreme Court Justice’s not only looked at the Constitution before deciding Roe they looked at the many precedents regarding privacy before Roe was decided.

In fact it would be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including cases regarding child rearing.

The following Surpreme Court decisions most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that just 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.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Slavery is illegal. Abortion is not.
Click to expand...

You cannot enter a contract forcing a woman that she cannot have an abortion or she must have an abortion.

Are you really deducing a surrogate as simply an incubator and not a living breathing woman with rights?
 
minnie616 said:
The Supreme Court Justice’s not only looked at the Constitution before deciding Roe they looked at the many precedents regarding privacy before Roe was decided.

In fact it would be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including cases regarding child rearing.

The following Surpreme Court decisions most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned and that just 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...

Thank for the history lesson. Although nobody asked you to post something that is taught in high school civics.
 
Bucky said:
Thank for the history lesson. Although nobody asked you to post something that is taught in high school civics.
Click to expand...

It seems many pro life people who post on the abortion forum forget that the right to privacy was decided long before Roe v Wade.

They think the 7 out of 9 mostly conservative Justices who helped decide Roe v Wade made up Right to privacy.

They also forget that when Casey V Planned Parenthood was decided and many conservatives were hopeful that Roe would be overturned the best the Conservative justices could give their conservative base was the made up undue burden clause.

Which actually came back to bite Texas conservatives who tried to pass laws requiring all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

Look up :Whole woman’s Health v Hellerstedt


From the following:

Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether.

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances.

Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.
(However, the doctrine of stare decisis is not always relied upon. From time to time, the Court overrules earlier precedent that the Justices believe had been wrongly decided.) O’Connor argued that a generation of women had come to depend on the right to an abortion. Nonetheless, certain restrictions were upheld.

As a result of the case, a woman continues to have a right to an abortion before the fetus is viable (before the fetus could live independently outside of the mother’s womb). The Court held that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability. However, the states can regulate abortions before viability as long as the regulation does not place an “undue burden” on the access to abortion. After fetal viability, however, states have increased power to restrict the availability of abortions.
Click to expand...

Landmark Supreme Court Cases | The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
I personally do not believe in unfettered abortion.

I have a friend that was a surrogate for a couple. The couple changed their minds and wanted the surrogate to abort. The surrogate refused because she was personally against abortion but the law FORCED her to have an abortion. That is completely outrageous.
Click to expand...

If this really happened, I agree it's outrageous, but it has nothing to do w/ my post.

There should always be a clause in the contract about what to do if any of the parties change their mind. If the bio couple wants to back out and the surrogate does not want to abort, she (the surrogate) should be responsible for the child.
 
year2late said:
Huh??
Click to expand...

My point is entering into a contract that forces a woman to have a baby or have an abortion is imho illegal and not valid.

If you are going to use a surrogate, there is a human element of risk.
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see the link in #243. That right is based on a SCOTUS decision. What SCOTUS grants, SCOTUS can take away.
Click to expand...

Correct. And the activists that remove people's individual rights can enjoy their own rights, until they're gone.:2wave:
 
Bucky said:
My point is entering into a contract that forces a woman to have a baby or have an abortion is imho illegal and not valid.

If you are going to use a surrogate, there is a human element of risk.
Click to expand...

Yes that is illegal and does not happen
 
vegas giants said:
Yes that is illegal and does not happen
Click to expand...

There are cases that could be brought up to the Supreme Court regarding this subject matter.

My point is, you cannot force someone to have an abortion. You cannot force someone to give birth. That is the constitutional right of the individual.

It woul
 
Bucky said:
My point is entering into a contract that forces a woman to have a baby or have an abortion is imho illegal and not valid.

If you are going to use a surrogate, there is a human element of risk.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder if she was forced to have an abortion.

MY guess is that she felt forced because she was unwilling to accept the civil consequences of breaking her contract.

If that is the case, she should not have signed the contract unless she was willing to accept the consequences of breaking it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom