[W:103]Abortion is legal

[Anarchon]

Most women do not know they are pregnant that early. I see nothing wrong with abortion. Why should your opinion trump mine when it comes to me making decisions for *my* body and it's contents?

Have the baby if you want...just don't make the guy pay for it.

 

[Lursa]

Have the baby if you want...just don't make the guy pay for it.

She wont. She cant...but the state (that you looooovvvee) will :mrgreen:

 

[minnie616]

She wont. She cant...but the state (that you looooovvvee) will :mrgreen:

No truer words spoken.

If the woman needs financial support to raise a child , as soon as she applies for help from the state , its the state that insists the father also pays support.

 

[minnie616]

Even your own source states that the right to privacy is “not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution” and “the definition of the right to privacy is ever-changing.”

If Roe v. Wade was set in stone, pro-choice feminists would not have been so vehemently opposed to the Kavanaugh nomination.

You are reaching.

Roe has been reaffirmed 10 times.

Gorsuch agreed that Roe was settled law.

If I recall correctly 7 Justices were conservative when the Planned Parenthood v Casey Case was decided by the Surpreme Court.
Many pro life people were hopeful Roe would be overturned or struck down because the court was conservative yet the best that thing the conservative Court could come up with was the undue burden clause.

As Kavanaugh said during his Senate hearing for appointment to Surpreme Court Casey was “precedent on precedent “.

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.

The Casey Case: Roe Revisited? | www.streetlaw.org

 

[Scrabaholic]

Have the baby if you want...just don't make the guy pay for it.

What does your reply have to do with my post?

Child support is not the topic of this thread. There are threads dedicated to that subject. I will not debate it here.

 

[RobertU]

You are reaching.

Roe has been reaffirmed 10 times.

Gorsuch agreed that Roe was settled law.

If I recall correctly 7 Justices were conservative when the Planned Parenthood v Casey Case was decided by the Surpreme Court.
Many pro life people were hopeful Roe would be overturned or struck down because the court was conservative yet the best that thing the conservative Court could come up with was the undue burden clause.

As Kavanaugh said during his Senate hearing for appointment to Surpreme Court Casey was “precedent on precedent “.

From the following:


The Casey Case: Roe Revisited? | www.streetlaw.org

Brett Kavanaugh likely gives the Supreme Court the votes to overturn Roe. Here’s how they’d do it.

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/10/17551644/brett-kavanaugh-roe-wade-abortion-trump

 

[Scrabaholic]

Brett Kavanaugh likely gives the Supreme Court the votes to overturn Roe. Here’s how they’d do it.

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/10/17551644/brett-kavanaugh-roe-wade-abortion-trump

There would have to be a justifiable reason to overturn it, regardless of their personal opinion on abortion. How often do SC decisions get overturned?

 

[year2late]

Brett Kavanaugh likely gives the Supreme Court the votes to overturn Roe. Here’s how they’d do it.

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/10/17551644/brett-kavanaugh-roe-wade-abortion-trump

I am curious, if R v W is overturned, do you really think abortions would drastically decrease? I argue that they might even INCREASE. Pushers that no longer sell weed because of the legalization of marijuana can have a new drug to sell. SO many cities do not have Planned Parenthood, and now that will be less relevant. Abortions via pill may even become more accessible and cheaper (albeit less safe without MD)

 

[Logical1]

Slavery was once "legal" too but that didnt make it right either, did it.

 

[Lursa]

Slavery was once "legal" too but that didnt make it right either, did it.

Slavery involved people.

Abortion only involves one person: the pregnant woman.

 

[RobertU]

There would have to be a justifiable reason to overturn it, regardless of their personal opinion on abortion. How often do SC decisions get overturned?

As noted in the linked article:

The Supreme Court, by contrast, can overturn its own precedents. It’s usually hesitant to do so, but just this term it threw out three decades-old rulings: 1977’s Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 1967’s National Bellas Hess v. Illinois, and 1992’s Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.

 

[Lursa]

As noted in the linked article:

The Supreme Court, by contrast, can overturn its own precedents. It’s usually hesitant to do so, but just this term it threw out three decades-old rulings: 1977’s Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 1967’s National Bellas Hess v. Illinois, and 1992’s Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.

I read the article you posted from Vox.

Not sure you understood it.

Can you give me...as previously requested...a legal basis to overturn RvW? What new legal considerations for SCOTUS to look at?

 

[RobertU]

I read the article you posted from Vox.

Not sure you understood it.

Can you give me...as previously requested...a legal basis to overturn RvW? What new legal considerations for SCOTUS to look at?

What part of "Brett Kavanaugh likely gives the Supreme Court the votes to overturn Roe. Here’s how they’d do it." don't you understand?

 

[Lursa]

What part of "Brett Kavanaugh likely gives the Supreme Court the votes to overturn Roe. Here’s how they’d do it." don't you understand?

So then the answer to my question should be in the article. I didnt see it....so please quote it.

 

[Scrabaholic]

As noted in the linked article:

The Supreme Court, by contrast, can overturn its own precedents. It’s usually hesitant to do so, but just this term it threw out three decades-old rulings: 1977’s Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 1967’s National Bellas Hess v. Illinois, and 1992’s Quill Corp. v. North Dakota.

I repeat: There would have to be a justifiable reason to overturn it, regardless of their personal opinion on abortion.

 

[minnie616]

Brett Kavanaugh likely gives the Supreme Court the votes to overturn Roe. Here’s how they’d do it.

Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/10/17551644/brett-kavanaugh-roe-wade-abortion-trump

That article is a example of extreame reaching.

The article you linked sums up their whole case by saying :

Simply overturning the two-year-old Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, for example, would eliminate access in swaths of the country and close the last abortion clinic in Mississippi.

Well , overturning Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt will not be easy.

In fact the courts have issued orders that Missippi cannot close the last abortion clinic and more abortions clinics are planning on opening in Mississippi since those laws that caused to clinics to close in Mississippi were struck down.

In order for a state regulation to prevail a law must not establish an undue burden for pregnant women seeking to terminate their unborn child. The Texas and Mississippi cases caused the women an undue burden.

 

[Wan]

It's my body, I will do what I want with it and it's contents.

Your right hand is also part of your body and you can do what you want with it, but the minute it starts to hit my face, that's when your right stops.

Also, I am sorry to hear that you consider your own baby to be "content" of your body. You must really hate your young.

 

[minnie616]

I read the article you posted from Vox.

Not sure you understood it.

Can you give me...as previously requested...a legal basis to overturn RvW? What new legal considerations for SCOTUS to look at?

The article had nothing to do with overturning Roe v Wade.

The whole thing was about making laws in states that caused undue burdens and the woman wouldn’t have access to a legal abortion befor viabilty.

But that involved “ simply” overturning the Whole Woman’s Health Surpreme Court decision.
Which would be far from easy since in order to overturn that they would also have to overturn the Casey decision which as Kavenaugh explained is “Precedent on Precedent “.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Your right hand is also part of your body and you can do what you want with it, but the minute it starts to hit my face, that's when your right stops.

Me having an abortion has no effect on you.

 

[Wan]

Me having an abortion has no effect on you.

My point was that your right to your own body stops when it starts to interfere with the unborn's right to life.

 

[Lursa]

My point was that your right to your own body stops when it starts to interfere with the unborn's right to life.

Who says?

 

[Logician Man]

Your right hand is also part of your body and you can do what you want with it, but the minute it starts to hit my face, that's when your right stops.

Also, I am sorry to hear that you consider your own baby to be "content" of your body. You must really hate your young.

//// You must really hate your young. //// <----- That sounds like a rather disturbing projection.

 

[Wan]

//// You must really hate your young. //// <----- That sounds like a rather disturbing projection.

I see that you are still obsessed with me.

Good to see you again.

 

[Logician Man]

I see that you are still obsessed with me.

Good to see you again.

Hello Wan..Looking forward to more great agreements on abortion,women's rights, and other pleasantries.

 

[Wan]

Hello Wan..Looking forward to more great agreements on abortion,women's rights, and other pleasantries.

Haha, I am not too sure about the agreement part but yes it would be quite nice to talk to you again.