• 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

Lursa said:
It's a very big difference and we point it out at our argument's expense because if it were enumerated in the Const, it would be much much harder to change.

That's why I kept asking you how the states would manage it...because they cannot violate many of our "enumerated" rights in order to enforce laws placed on abortion.
Click to expand...

I suspect the starting point would be the status quo ante Roe.
 
Lursa said:
No it's not. There have been cases brought to federal courts regarding 'cruel and unusual' punishment (forbidden explicitly in the Const). We halted the death penalty in our state for years when there was a federal challenge from an obese inmate who's attorney claimed he'd be decapitated by hanging. (As if that matters :roll:)
Click to expand...

Nibbling around the edges.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nibbling around the edges.
Click to expand...

So you're done then? That's not an answer, it doesnt even make sense.

You have resorted to cryptic one-liners rather than supporting your opinions.
 
Lursa said:
So you're done then? That's not an answer, it doesnt even make sense.

You have resorted to cryptic one-liners rather than supporting your opinions.
Click to expand...

I'm not an attorney, but I think it's clear that if SCOTUS can defer on the death penalty SCOTUS can defer on abortion. Would there be marginal tweaks? No doubt, but states would be free to allow or forbid.
 
Jack Hays said:
State of the laws before Roe. You need to refresh your Latin.
Click to expand...

True, I was thinking 'after'.

However the rights of women were not examined in the courts when it was illegal before. Now those violations will not stand. The states will have no power to change it where it violates the Const.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm not an attorney, but I think it's clear that if SCOTUS can defer on the death penalty SCOTUS can defer on abortion. Would there be marginal tweaks? No doubt, but states would be free to allow or forbid.
Click to expand...

I just gave you an example showing they do not defer on the DP.

States may restrict, but cannot criminalize. And that's a crucial point.

And btw, that's what red states have been trying for years. Some states only have one faciltiy where they can perform abortions. Restrictions on forcing sonograms on women and Drs having hospital privileges have been turned down left and right.

That's why they're going for the whole enchilada now.
 
Lursa said:
True, I was thinking 'after'.

However the rights of women were not examined in the courts when it was illegal before. Now those violations will not stand. The states will have no power to change it where it violates the Const.
Click to expand...

The subject of further legal action, no doubt, but if states can pass muster on the death penalty then they can pass muster on abortion.
 
Jack Hays said:
The subject of further legal action, no doubt, but if states can pass muster on the death penalty then they can pass muster on abortion.
Click to expand...

With due process, there is no violation of Const. rights. That's the DP.

Pregnancy is not a crime...where is the probable cause for due process? (Just one example.)

Again, it's all in the enforcement of the restrictions. This is why criminalization isnt going to stand. Restrictions of some type may but based on what?
 
Lursa said:
I just gave you an example showing they do not defer on the DP.

States may restrict, but cannot criminalize. And that's a crucial point.

And btw, that's what red states have been trying for years. Some states only have one faciltiy where they can perform abortions. Restrictions on forcing sonograms on women and Drs having hospital privileges have been turned down left and right.

That's why they're going for the whole enchilada now.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS defers on the DP. They enforce standards, but the basic up/down decision is left to the states.
If Roe is reversed then states will certainly be free to criminalize abortion.
 
Jack Hays said:
SCOTUS defers on the DP. They enforce standards, but the basic up/down decision is left to the states.
If Roe is reversed then states will certainly be free to criminalize abortion.
Click to expand...

Please source the bold. And what are the 'up/down decisions?' To have the DP or not? :roll: The difference is one is choosing NOT to violate a Const. right...and the DP is not enumerated in the Const. It's not a right (it cant be). It's about not violating someone's Const. rights. That is the opposite of abortion. The states cannot just decide to violate someone's Const. rights.

And the states cannot criminalize abortion without violating rights of due process, bodily sovereignty, and privacy, for a few. And those were not challenged 'ante' RvW.
 
Lursa said:
With due process, there is no violation of Const. rights. That's the DP.

Pregnancy is not a crime...where is the probable cause for due process? (Just one example.)

Again, it's all in the enforcement of the restrictions. This is why criminalization isnt going to stand. Restrictions of some type may but based on what?
Click to expand...

Pregnancy would not be a crime. Ending a pregnancy would be.
 
Lursa said:
Please source the bold. And what are the 'up/down decisions?' To have the DP or not? :roll: The difference is one is choosing NOT to violate a Const. right...and the DP is not enumerated in the Const. It's not a right (it cant be). It's about not violating someone's Const. rights. That is the opposite of abortion. The states cannot just decide to violate someone's Const. rights.

And the states cannot criminalize abortion without violating rights of due process, bodily sovereignty, and privacy, for a few. And those were not challenged 'ante' RvW.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS deference on the DP is self-evident. And yes, up/down is simply whether to have the DP.
Your other objections would no doubt (as I said earlier) be the subject of further legal action.
 
Jack Hays said:
Pregnancy would not be a crime. Ending a pregnancy would be.
Click to expand...

How would they detect a pregnancy? How would they have probable cause to prevent any actions a woman takes, like leaving the state for one...which GA specifically criminalized?

That's just one, obvious example.

Other more common ones involve investigating miscarriages.
 
Jack Hays said:
SCOTUS deference on the DP is self-evident. And yes, up/down is simply whether to have the DP.
Your other objections would no doubt (as I said earlier) be the subject of further legal action.
Click to expand...

And it's not the same because it's state decision NOT to violate rights, whereas abortion is the opposite...do you understand now why your comparison fails?
 
Lursa said:
How would they detect a pregnancy? How would they have probable cause to prevent any actions a woman takes, like leaving the state for one...which GA specifically criminalized?

That's just one, obvious example.
Click to expand...

Not necessary to take action to prevent, only to arrest those who break the law.
 
Jack Hays said:
Pregnancy would not be an interest.
Click to expand...

You are floundering here. It's simple, women that dont want to remain pregnant would take over-the-counter tests and remain quiet and do what they needed to do. Out of state if needed. Using the abortion pills. Etc.

What do you think making abortion illegal means? Why would this even be proposed then? If you make a law(s), dont you have to enforce them? In a manner that is Constitutional?
 
Jack Hays said:
It does not fail because the analogy is sound.
Click to expand...

It's not. Now you have stopped trying to defend your own arguments and are just saying 'na huh.' Your analogy with the DP fails because it is about NOT violating anyone's rights. States are welcome to create laws that dont violate anyone's rights :roll: Criminalizing abortion WOULD violate women's Const rights.

Your analogy fails...if not, explain why it doesnt.
 
Lursa said:
You are floundering here. It's simple, women that dont want to remain pregnant would take over-the-counter tests and remain quiet and do what they needed to do. Out of state if needed. Using the abortion pills. Etc.

What do you think making abortion illegal means? Why would this even be proposed then? If you make a law(s), dont you have to enforce them? In a manner that is Constitutional?
Click to expand...

As I have said throughout, the outcome of Roe reversal would be a division between pro-choice and pro-life states, probably along red/blue lines. No problem traveling to a pro-choice state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom