Why do folks at GaG think the abortion debate is simply about choice vs life?

[RolandCuthbert]

It never fails. So many folks here argue over political catchphrases than actual facts. The debate is framed by the media because American media is lazy.

The actual legal argument against Roe was made on the basis of privacy. That Roe had the right to consult with her doctor over issues about her medical condition during pregnancy. And the doctor had the right to prescribe abortion as one of the options to be considered.

I previously stated that Roe was having issues with her pregnancy. That was incorrect, information. That was her claim at the time. According to her statements during her documentary that was a lie. I didn't know, but the woman was an absolute mess. She seemed to be a serial liar. She actually made the claim she was raped by a group of "Black" men because she thought an abortion would be granted because of the racist obsession with mixed babies. But they lacked evidence for rape. She sought an illegal abortion, but couldn't afford it. Nor could she travel elsewhere. So she joined the suit against Texas and the lawyer formulated the opinion about privacy. She never actually cared about the debate beyond being paid. And the anti-abortion movement paid her about a half million dollars before she died.

But the point is, the legal ruling has nothing to do with my body, my choice. It has to do with private consultation with your doctor. Me and my ex never attempted to have a child. But we knew couples that did. And a few had a horrible time of it. One couple had several miscarriages/abortions and the wife had to be monitored constantly because of the jeopardy to her life. This abortion ruling no longer offers women protection against the state interfering with their decisions to abort when their safety is threatened.

Because even if you are in a state that might grant you an exception because of the mother's life is in danger, it won't matter. The decision to abortion is not made by a doctor. It is made by an appointee or a board that has no medical training. So they get to decide whether or not your life is under threat.

Clarence Thomas said they are coming for contraception next. The story there only gets worse. But if you are going to argue, at least argue over the actual legal justification for or against.

[blondfrog]

This isn't just a GAG thing its a whole world thing and same on any other social media platform unfortunately. Abortions are a very complicated matter and I think should be determined by the given situation at hand and what country you are in. I say country you are in because not every country has gov programs like welfare the way the U. S does.

[RolandCuthbert]

I dunno. . . I have yet to see a thread that discusses the actual litigation of Roe v Wade. That's why I started this one.

[blondfrog]

Oh yes that in itself I agree.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

I agree. People think that the only thing that is on the table is the moral issue. Not at all.
The social and economical consequences will be visible soon.

[7barbieringz]

I think a big shift is coming to America soon. Our govt is taking away any incentive to be a part of society. Out side of taking away our rights, we don't have proper access to healthcare, were under paid, the cost of living exceeds minimum wage, buying a house is impossible, don't forget most people have mountains of student loan debt before they're even 25.

It is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable and I see more and more people getting pissed off. There's no winning here. I can work 40hrs a week and still not have enough to pay my monthly bills.. then why even work?

It's going to get bad, and I believe it's gonna happen sooner than we think.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@7barbieringz the conservatives will be surprised when the crash comes, but the ones at the top making the decisions have more than enough money to not care.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@7barbieringz I find it odd how much people in the US brag about the country. A ridiculous amount of illiterate population. The most expensive healthcare system in the world that also has one of the highest child mortality than all other developed countries. Mountains of student debt for getting a higher education.

I really don't get it.

[7barbieringz]

I absolutely hate being here. It's not a country to brag about at all. I want to move to Canada in a few years. The healthcare system is a joke and it literally makes me want to cry. So many people have died just because they didn't have money, my cousin passed from a simple infection because she couldn't afford it.

It's going to eventually blow up in the higher ups faces, it's inevitable. People get fed up, and there's no incentive to be civil anymore.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@7barbieringz that is very sad I am very sorry for your cousin.
I would move to Canada too as soon as possible.

I feel sorry for the people that will have to stay when capitalism collapses again.

[RolandCuthbert]

@7barbieringz I would implore you to stay. But I get your point. I just think we have spent too much blood, sweat and tears to make this nation a place that is livable for most of us. And to just give up doesn't seem right.

But you have to make your own decisions. Good luck.

[loveslongnails]

@7barbieringz The "have's and have-nots" gap has been widening for years, going back to the days of Reagan and the ruse that was "Reaganomics". As the poster states, when the crash comes, the top 10% of wage earners will survive it, and the top 3% will profit even more from it (thank you, Trump!). But you're absolutely right to be pissed that your hard work does nothing but barely keep you above water. The next "revolution" won't be about color, or race, but rather... futility.

[Jamie05rhs]

@7barbieringz I agree with you 100%.

[monorprise]

50 million fewer born and raised Americans has had a dramatic effect on our economy, and culture.

The current ruling however will change very little as the States that are banning abortion had almost no abortions.

[monorprise]

@7barbieringz You are aware that most of those issues are really regional a direct result of regional regulation and policy.

Houses are unaffordable in many places because Governments have not allowed enough of them to be built.
Healthcare is unaffordable because the Government has effectively mandated insurance via the tax code and formerly directly meaning there is no reason for any provider to do anything but raise prices as fast as they can for the last 60 years. As it won't drive away customers unaware of the price.

Many people have mountains of student loan dept for the same reason, as kids they didn't understand what they were doing, and the school had no reason at all to do anything but raise their tuition and living expense.

The fact that people are taking theses wages demonstrates they can get by on them. Flipping burgers at McDonald does not entitled you to your own house in a region where the supply limited. Those few houses go to the few people the government deems able to meet their standards.

The rest will have to get roommates or better yet move.
There are inexpensive houses in this country.

[RiseofArtemis]

@7barbieringz I can already see the US having a giant recession and a social collapse happening. It might be the fault of the government itself that this happens. And I'm sure that the founding fathers never intended that education was so expensive and that you'd have to pay for delivering a child. That alone sounds ridiculous but what do you expect of the most capitalist nation on earth

[RolandCuthbert]

@monorprise I didn't see this. You are not even posting fact. Texas had 50-60K abortions yearly before this ruling.

[monorprise]

@RiseofArtemis Why would they not expect education to be expensive or paying for child delivery that is what was done in their day and would continue to be done in this country.

Public education wasn't even a thing in most all the states until after the Civil War in the 1860s.

Health insurance wouldn't be available to buy for anyone until after World War 2 in the 1940s.

[DeltaCharlieEcho]

Women use abortion as a means of birth control. The problem is that women don't understand what nullifying Roe actually does and neither do most men on the left.

The US is dividing up and the federal government is effectively creating geographic lines in an effort to stop civil war from happening. By nullifying Roe this forces women that believe that they should be able to abort a child because they made a bad choice to move to states that will protect their rights; it forces people that hold strong views against abortion in any capacity to move to states that align with their beliefs. Roe was written based on bad law and interpretation from the beginning, that is why it has never been written officially as an amendment and why it has been under debate for 50 years.

I personally believe the practice to be horrific as a means of birth control and the fact that women are completely unable to understand that they are killing another body within themselves not a part of their body is staggering to me. But I will never have to make that choice, so it is hard for me to hold an opinion on the topic. That said, on the merits of worthiness of being president for other laws, Roe was wrong.

Women need to learn to take responsibility for their actions, and that isn't going to happen if they can kill others to save themselves from the repercussions.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I am pretty certain most women do not use abortion as birth control. Women usually take contraception to prevent birth. But you do know that men can use contraceptives also. Why do so many anti-abortion folks forget that?

And why do you continuously talk about the mistakes women made? The men pounding every woman they see, don't make a mistake? Maybe they should wear a condom.

As for your weird religious concerns, perhaps that should not become law. I mean it isn't like you are even accurately reflecting your own beliefs, right? You don't really care about life, right? You care about control.

[DeltaCharlieEcho]

You must be slow. Women have all the power in deciding who gets sex; men have the power in deciding who gets relationships.

[RolandCuthbert]

No I am not slow. I am just not an incel. I don't beg women for sex. They beg me.

And every incel has the blueprint for turning their lives around, but they would rather pretend that sex is some gift that women give to men, than understand that they can be desired by many women, even beautiful ones if they only put in the work.

To All the Men Who Think They Have Been Friendzoned, Passed Over, etc. Here is a Little Advice... ↗

[DeltaCharlieEcho]

Sure they do champ; sure they do.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not here to fix crazy.

Good luck with that.

[monorprise]

Your story proving Roe lied about her reasons for an abortion to get one places the issue in the hands of said court. A doctor is not qualified to tell if your telling the truth only if you require it medically which she did not.

'Privacy rights' however is a absurd argument not only because privacy is NOT mentioned and thus not protected by the Federal Constitution but were such a 'protected right' an excuse to break any law with an illegal action, nobody would be safe no matter how you define it.

Contraceptives has the same problem the power to declare it a 'right' is not in the U. S. Constitution and were it so said constitution would no longer have any meaningful limits as anything and everything is a 'right' including murder and genocide.

A 'right' is simply anything you can do in a state of Nature.

We have state legislators and Constitution to decide what rights we 'protect' at the expense of other 'rights'.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Not sure what Roe lying about her reasons for an abortion have to do with the issue. It would be like me introducing the fact that Roe lied about her support for the anti-abortion movement as some crucial piece of evidence. None of this has anything to do with the legal arguments for or against.

2. Privacy rights and the right to life are central to this discussion. And the Supreme Court has already ruled the right to privacy is derived from the 14th Amendment. It has also defined that the right to privacy is wide and far-reaching. The government must have extraordinary reasoning to overturn such a right. That right is granted to every American citizen. Even women.

3. Actually your position is nonsensical since you claim that a state can deprive a person of life, liberty, privacy, and property. . . simply because the state could prove other rights are not defined in the Constitution. Like a state banning birth control. Many woman consult with doctors who prescribe birth control as a form of treatment. Most folks in the real world know that birth control is used to treat many other illnesses outside of being used as a contraceptive. But you would claim the state still has the right to interfere in the private decision between a doctor and his patient. Which is beyond insane.

4. The last two statements do not even approach rational thought. No one is claiming their rights are being violated by allowing abortion. Not even the extremists who are against it.

[monorprise]

1: Did you not just say she claimed her reason for getting an abortion was rape?
That this was determined to be a lie and therefore she had no legally permitted accepted reason for getting an abortion (killing her child) in Texas.
This is a rather important legal fact which addresses why your issues with the board's qualifications.

2: Once again the Federal politicians in black robes do not have the right to amend the constitution therefore there is no more Federal constitutional protection for any right to "privacy" than any other unmentioned concept. Just because a unelected and unaccountable federal politician says something doesn't mean its true.

Such a power would make them dictators, and the USA an oligarchy. Would you be ok with them finding people who demand services from others to be non-human and thus open game?

In this case they made it rather obvious, what does privacy have to do with an any action?
Privacy is the concept of not being observed the business is very much aware of their actions as is the baby they are killing. Were we to pretend otherwise or even assume otherwise almost everything would be legal under such unenumerated "privacy rights".

3: Explain then the Federal Drug Administration and the various State Drug Administrations?

States have been welding such arbitrary police powers since day 1, the Feds were never granted such powers but nonetheless picked politicians to rubber stamp it anyway in 1906.
We agree at least the Feds have no business banning the use of any drug for any reason.

4: I'm sorry you can't process the idea politicians having unlimited and unaccountable power over the constitution in a case by case basis. Perhaps you should read the founders elegant warnings about unlimited power. I am not sure I can believe you have not heard pro-lifers claiming the baby is life. This is after all what they shout all the time and even call themselfs.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Dude, who are you talking to? If you have some condition that makes you hear voices, that needs to be resolved outside of this forum. Again, nothing you posted here has anything to do with the legal ruling on Roe V Wade. Maybe you should read or listen to the legal arguments before posting me.

2. No one is amending the Constitution. Our right are defined in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution. You do not. That power is defined by the Constitution itself. Again, it is one of those things you need to read. And I quote;

As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

3. Uhm, I am talking about human and individual rights. You are talking about drug administration. Maybe those two topics have nothing to do with each other. Sufficed to say, women have the same rights as men. A state cannot override those rights based upoon superstitious or religious beliefs.

4. That's actually your problem as you have certified a state has unlimited power to take away whatever rights it sees fit, based upon your superstitious beliefs. No one is violating your rights by telling you women have a right to privacy and to life.

[monorprise]

1: Pulling a page out of Rules for radical and accusing me of what you yourself are doing in refusing to read and answer my clear cut questions?
I addressed your contention about the composition of the board. In my view the legal argument was not the merits of the Texas law but whether or not the Federal court even had the right to review it.

This hinges upon the idea that there is an unwritten federal constitutional protection 'right of privacy' and that 'right to privacy' to allows people to commit otherwise illegal acts with or against other people.

In 1965 the Warren court invented the concept that the Federal constitution had unwritten protection for the right to 'privacy' in the case: "Griswold v. Connecticut". This was 90+ years after the same congress (Comstock Act of 1873) and states that had both ratified the 14th amendment and soon thereafter passed the same laws the court suddenly in 1965 found unconstitutional further undermining the court's case.

The Warren and future Burger court were composed of men who thought themselfs entitled to rewrite the law on a case by case basis, contradicting centuries of practice, case precedents, and the text itself.

If you think We people ever agreed to live under such all powerful, effectively unaccountable and lawless tyrants pushing their agenda on a case by case basis, you should have no problem with the Robert's court's rulings.

[monorprise]

2: The Federal Constitution doesn't actually give the court the power to define its meaning except for itself. The Federal Court shares this power of necessity with every other branch and level of government along with the people. This is what the court really determined in Marbury v Madison because Marbury never got the writ even thou he court thought he was entitled to it, the court knew they didn't have the power to force the exclusive to share their "interpretation".

When people say the court has the 'last word' they are correct only in that every other branch and relevant level of governments had to agree before the court even saw the case under due process of law.

3: Your claiming the existence for the constitutional protection of said rights already disregarded by said Drug administrations...

We may agree the FDA is illegitimate, it nonetheless still bans many drugs (including contraception) often for little reason other than to protect market share of big drug companies via a process called "regulatory capture".

What did you expect when you made them part of a government too far away to be observed and representatives have 1000 other issues to campaign on every election?

4: The fact that the people of each state can invest in their state government via the State constitution vast powers (Known to the federal government a police powers) is hardly surprising. We the people have said rights to form governments with powers we think proper.

[monorprise]

2: to amend #2 Article 3 Section 2 clause 1 defines the Supreme courts jurisdiction with the modification of the 11th amendment which removes their jurisdiction over the state with regard to parties of other states.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;"
"—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;"
"—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;"
"—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;"
"—to Controversies between two or more States;"
"—between a State and Citizens of another State," (repealed by the 11th amendment)
"—between Citizens of different States,"
"—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States,
and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."(State and forign citizens part repealed by 11th amendment)

There is no explicit or exclusive power to decide the meaning of the Constitution. That power is inferred by necessity in knowing what laws are under this Constitution, as apposed to the 13 other State Constitutions.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Pulling a page? Dude, I cannot debate your feelings, your religion or your superstitions. I can only debate the law. If you wish to talk about the law, great. If not, get off my thread. I am done with emotional nonsensical rants. I care about what the law states and what the Supreme Court has ruled. Your view could have Donald Duck judging what is fair or equitable for all women.

2. The right to privacy is not "unwritten". Again, I don't care about what you think the court should do. I care about the Constitution and what the court has ruled. So with that said,

Point A. The Warren Court did not invent anything. It said the 14th Amendment includes the right of privacy.

Point B. The Alito opinion never revoked this right. In fact in his opinion, Justice Alito said this opinion cannot be used to overturn other precedents. Those cases were decided on the right of privacy. Read his opinion.

"Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. But we have stated unequivocally that '[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.' We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life.'"

3. Nothing but lies. The right of privacy is granted to citizens, even women. And a state that would claim that an unborn fetus has rights above and beyond the mother is a religious extremist theocracy that engages in state sanctioned murder.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, you wrote three posts? Are you kidding me? Your mind is that confused and disorganized, you can't keep your arguments to simple logical points?

1. Read that first sentence out aloud and tell me how it approaches rational thinking. The statement on the court's authority comes from the Constitution itself. The highest law of the land. No other branch cannot "overturn" the court's authority. The President can appoint different justices and Congress can pass new leglislation. The end.

2. Actually, it isn't. Banning the selling of drugs that have not been tested or that are deemed harmful has nothing to do with my right to life or to privacy. And there isn't a single ruling by the Court that contradicts that view. Your superstitious or religious concerns do not factor into the law.

3. No matter what powers you think a state has, it cannot revoke a citizen's right to privacy or to life over religious or superstitious concerns.

[RolandCuthbert]

I have no idea what the last post is about. I think you are so excited, you posted me portions of Article III to support a point, that you have forgotten about.

The Supreme Court has ruled on abortion. This last decision is in your favor. . . are you saying that this ruling can be overturned by some outside body?

Have thought about this longer than five seconds?

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert

The current court's ruling returning the issues to the States is in effect returning to the original default position of withdrawing federal government's power over the States on the issue of abortion.

This is called nullification, and it would be rather difficult for the other 2 branches of the Federal Government to undo given their need to get the court to agree to convict anyone of violating their 'laws'.

The States however could easily take whatever position they want as they have their own independently operating 3 branch government that doesn't need the federal Government to enforce their laws.

The only way to impose upon people or their States is if the 3 branches of the Federal Government were to conspire against them, as was the case with Roe v. Wade and numerous other edicts.

Even then the original system was designed to prohibit the federal government from doing so in any area of domestic concern not of great relevance to other states. By giving them only use of the State's militia who's officers and training the states still controlled, thus requiring either their cooperation or the cooperation of their neighbors who's interest in the federal law being upheld must overwrite.

The only other constitutional force is the regular army who's appropriation was limited to 2 years at a time and very much spoken against as the great threat to a free country for this very reason.

To put this in explicit terms, a president (or Governor in the case of the militia) could command his/her army to do whatever he or she wants, and simply replace any officers and discipline any solders that said no. This is how coup's really work all the time.

[RolandCuthbert]

You worded that wrongly. The court decided to overturn the Roe V Wade ruling because it claims no explicit right for abortion is stated in the Constitution. Then Alito added an addendum addressing your nonsense specifically. That this ruling is only for the special case of abortion only. That all other precedents should not be touched. Those precedents were decided on the right to privacy.

No state can violate the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to American citizens. No matter what religious or superstitious nonsense you spin.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert We were discussing the origin of the power of the court to nullify federal acts, not specifically why roe v. wade the politicians choose to overturn their prior edict.

Most all of them knew Roe v. Wade was legally made up nonsense which is why they tried to revise it later away from the loony concept of "privacy".

It is correct that abortion isn't in the constitution nor was it ever a widely protected right among the states. Prior to 1973 it was actually banned by most of them.

In this sense i agree with Alto, The fact that he was unwilling to defend the limits of the constitution everywhere else is disappointing but not surprising.
Remember theses politicians are appointed by power hungry politicians. Your not going to get many judges who dont agree with them.

[RolandCuthbert]

What federal acts? Abortion was legal in the early 1800s until a woman felt the fetus moving or kicking. Then it was banned by the Catholic church. After that, there was a law banning contraceptives at the federal level. And by the turn of the century abortion was outlawed pretty much everywhere.

So nothing you post is making any sense. Which politicians? Are you saying this had nothing to do with women's rights, suffrage, etc?

No one tried to revise anything away from the right of privacy. You can cite no case before the Supreme Court. And I will tell you again for the third time, read Justice Alito's opinion. As he says again, this cannot be used to overturn any other precedent. He claims that abortion is a special case exempt from precedent.

And we know those precedents were made on the right of privacy. The additional concern in this case is a woman's right to life, which you still have not addressed.

No one is arguing that abortion is in the Constitution, only that the right to life and privacy are. And those rights belong to women as much as they do to men. They cannot be revoked over your religious or superstitious concerns.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert Any federal act can be nullified by any branch of the Federal Government, the ones that depend upon state cooperation can often be nullified by the States as well.

There were many different states with many different positions on abortion, the fact that any of them banned abortion at any point proved it was rejected as unenumerated federally protected right. As if the 10th amendment were not clear enough.

The Comstock act of 1873 did indeed ban the trade in contraception among the states and was followed by numerous State laws to the same effect.
Voted on and radifed by the same people who passed the 14th amendment only a few years earlier.

Yet we are suppose to believe in 1965 that amendment contained a federally protected right to "privacy" which made the provisions of the same law in effect until then unconstitutional... Such is a testament to the lawless absurdity of the Warren and Burger court of the 1950s,1960s, and 1970s.

I dont know how they expect us to respect them as 'judges' when they tell people they been violating the law they wrote for 100 years.

As to which politicians all members of all branches of Government are politicians, their agendas are infinite.

I am not claiming Alito agreed to reverse Griswold v. Connecticut (1965).
There are unfortunately not enough people concerned with honoring the terms of the Constitution we actually agreed to on the court to do that.

The right to privacy is quite clearly NOT written in the 11 page federal constitution. As explained above it was an invention the Federal politicians in black robes in 1965. The court ironically claimed it was somehow 'hidden' in the protection of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. As if the 9th did explicitly ban enumerating said rights to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Such as the right of 50+ million to not be killed, or to govern your state.

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, what federal act? You have confused a Supreme Court ruling with Federal legislation. I am trying to keep you focused on the Supreme Court's ruling. And you are all over the place. Of course there are states with different positions on abortion. That is the problem. You cannot have a Union where abortion is legal in one state and murder in another. We did this already in the Civil War. You cannot such wild interpretations in one union. We will go to war over this.

Yes, we are supposed to believe that because in the 1870s women did not have the right vote. What is wrong with you? You don't know history? You don't think that sexist laws were struck down because women became enfranchised?

Yes, people were violating the rights of women and many other groups for decades. And as these groups became enfranchised, they voted for their interest changing the law of the land.

You are making that claim. You keep talking about some non-existent ruling that called into question the right of privacy. It does not exist. It has been accepted as precedent in the Court. Period. And Alito wanted folks like you to know there is no reasoning in his ruling that points to overturning it.

And again, I will add that women also have the right to life and for the third time, I will ask you to address that.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
You seem to be missing the answers to your questions.
1: "Again, what federal act?"

All Federal acts can be nullified by any branch of the federal government and those depend upon state cooperation can be nullified by the State.
Pick one.
The one creating the AFT could simply be abolished by a President that calls the AFT unconstitutional and orders its agents to go pick flowers, or by a court which refuses to conflict anyone the AFT charges, or a Congress that refuses to fund or authorize them.

2: "You have confused a Supreme Court ruling with Federal legislation. "
Although the Supreme court frequently does this themselfs, I did not, nonetheless those too are Federal action.
The President Did not have to enforce Roe v. wade, he could have refused to use his army to compel compliance of states. This is what Jackson famously did.

3: "Of course there are states with different positions on abortion. That is the problem. You cannot have a Union where abortion is legal in one state and murder in another."
Why not we have a world like that, and prior to Roe v. wade we had a union like that for 186 years?

How is this issue any different then any of the other widely differing laws on murder between states?

Are you simply unable to tolerate the existence of anyone living by any other standards than those your demand? If so then you are the one we can't have a union with not the law.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
4: " We did this already in the Civil War. You cannot such wild interpretations in one union. We will go to war over this. "
We did for 186 years already... Why can't you tolerate the idea of other people in other states living by the laws they choose?

They are not even asking you to live among them under the same laws?
It sounds like your the problem with the union not the law. Actual borders defended with weapons are the only solution for such people otherwise they would overrun the world to impose "their values" at the expense of everyone else's values.

One wonders why they are so eager to shutdown a law which can be avoided with a simple move rather than invade Canada to restore free speech to the people held captive there.

5: "Yes, we are supposed to believe that because in the 1870s women did not have the right vote. What is wrong with you? You don't know history? "

I do know history and prior to the 19th amendment ratified in 1920, voting was a state issue, and some states like New Jersey let women vote from day one while others did not. Just because a Federal amendment was passed doesn't mean it didn't happen prior to that, the Amendment was the majority of States forcing their policy on all other states.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert

6: "You don't think that sexist laws were struck down because women became enfranchised? "

Sexist laws still exist.

7: "You are making that claim. You keep talking about some non-existent ruling that called into question the right of privacy. "
Where is this? I'm not talking about any such Federal court ruling. I am pointing out the Federal constitution does not protect the right to privacy from the States, or really even the federal government.
This is not written. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was a power grab that ignored the written Constitution and contradicted 90+ years of history law, practice, and enforcement to the contrary.

8: "And Alito wanted folks like you to know there is no reasoning in his ruling that points to overturning it. "

I don't dispute that is what Alito said. Alito is a hand picked federal politician appointed by other politicians to advance their agenda just like all the other federal politicians on the court. There are unfortunately not enough people concerned with honoring the terms of the Constitution we actually agreed to on the court to do that.

9: "And again, I will add that women also have the right to life and for the third time, I will ask you to address that. "

I do not dispute that women born and unborn have the right to life just like men. Why would you assume i was disputing that when arguing for the protection of that right?

To retain theses rights, Women just like Men have given up the right to kill under the domestic laws of the State.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Well, this has turned into a game. I will just keep asking "what federal act"? One day you will tell me the circumstance that applies to a woman's right to privacy.

2. Well, I don't believe in a lawless society. That's a different topic. Any person responsible for enforcing the law but refuses to enforce it, should be removed from office. But then that becomes a political decision.

3. Again women could not vote. You are not reading. You are just writing stuff.

You are not talking about living standards. You are talking about depriving American citizens of life, you are talking about states with the power of investigating and charging citizens with manslaughter or murder for having a miscarriage. You are talking about no privacy for American citizens in their medical decisions.

All because some of them can get pregnant.

Oh "intolerance", you mean the same way the Confederacy pretended that folks who did not like slavery were "intolerant".

If this is the religious theocratic state we have to confront, then so be it. And I am just going to say it plain. Just like in the Civil War, if we become a nation of abortion supporting states and anti-abortion states, we will go to war.

[RolandCuthbert]

4. Well, the Taliban thinks they have "values" also. But most folks think they are nothing but a bunch of religious extremists. Throwing women in jail for murder over miscarriages, denying them access to abortion when their life is in danger is not about "values". It is state sanctioned murder and persecution.

This is only about control. You wouldn't want the state to block you from life-saving care, so why would you allow it to block other citizens from getting the same or similar care.

5. Nonsense. A three or four states can't change Federal laws on the book for decades. Women had to be fully enfranchised for decades before they could organize, become a movement, define their issues and advocate for themselves.

This is not an example of rational thinking. I mean honestly.

You have to become a voting bloc. You have to vote and elect leaders who will advocate on your behalf, that is how our nation has changed. It didn't change overnight. The Roe V Wade wasn't some happenstance. It was the result of years and decades of planning and political strategy.

[RolandCuthbert]

6. Does this support your point? So all sexist laws should return because in your opinion, some sexist laws exist?

I am just asking for some rational thinking.

7. You keep doing this. Give me the case that even called into question that the Constitution does not support the right of privacy. I don't respect your opinion. But find one of a Justice in a ruling questioning that the right of privacy is guaranteed. Then we can have a conversation. Until then I will just ignore everything you post about the right of privacy. Because the Supreme Court has ruled on this more than a couple of times. And if Alito was concerned about it, he would have stated his concerns.

8. This is your opinion. When you become a Supreme Court Justice look me up.

9. Where does the Constitution give rights to the unborn. And at what point in pregnancy does the Constitution confer these rights?

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
1. I suppose a woman's right to privacy like everyone else's might be protected by the legislator refuse to finance spying equipment, or the executive refusing to order the actual spying on her, or such intrusions discouraged by a court that refuses to conflict anyone using such evidence.

2: Then you should want a system of government where the law is not depended upon the arbitrary view of a single man or group of men on a case by case basis.

3:
A) I am reading, and addressed the issue of women being able to vote in #5
B) States already wield such vast domestic powers and have since day one. (technically before for many of them). by the way most southern States convict you for double murder if you kill a pregnant woman.

As a matter of fact States like the Federal Government have long been particularly active in limiting what Doctors can do, this is part of the reason for the high cost of our highly 'regulated' medical industry.

C) The confederacy was an independent federation of 11 States that lost its war for independence against the U. S. Federal Government, a government who's leader repeatedly and empathically claimed they were NOT fighting to end slavery but rather simply to force their rule upon the states that no longer consented to it.

D) Why does everyone need to live under your same values and believes?

E) That would only be true if the most all of the left is like you. Even if they could win such a war it would just be the start of an endless series of ideological wars, for there will always be people needing or desiring laws you find disagreeable. Just as there will always be leaders trying to gen up such intolerance as an excuse to give themselfs more power.

That said such a war is unlikely to be winnable, particularity by the left. If you think Iraq and Afghanistan were bad try that in the most heavily armed land on Earth, 50 times larger scale with a fraction of the resources.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Again, I am just asking rational thinking. That just appears to be something you refuse to do. You go off on these conspiracy driven fantasies. The court has ruled on the right of privacy. Period.

2. But the law isn't dependent upon arbitrary views. Again the court hs ruled on the right of privacy.

3. No, you did not. You claimed that somehow the political landscape of this nation was changed by one court and not by the enfranchisement of women. That isn't an example of rational thinking.

4. And nonsensically a state can claim a pregnant woman cannot divorce her husband. Because the custody agreement cannot be finalized until birth. The Constitution exists to prevent such lunancy. We have rights states cannot take away.

5. And before they ceded, they claimed a state had the right to hold slaves. You are now simply being disingenuous. And to pretend that the Civil War was not about slavery is truly insane. All one needs to do is to read the declarations of independence of the states of the confederacy and the cornerstone speech by Alexander Stephens, the vice president.

[RolandCuthbert]

6. You offer a false choice. WE EITHER ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND TO PRIVACY OR NONE OF US HAVE IT. And if women do not have these rights guaranteed, sooner or later the members of the religious extremist taliban in this country will make up a reason to come for my rights. You don't believe in that, because evidently you have never been apart of a group who did not have access to constitutionally protected freedoms. My mother did grow up in a world where she even had the right to vote. And I guess it is too much to ask for a person who identifies with the group that withheld rights from certain groups to understand.

7. This is not about winning. I will have my rights or I will die fighting for them. If you want them. Come and try to take them. We fought the bloodiest war in history over basically the same issue. I guess it is a lesson we still have not learned. So label that leftist and stick in the toilet.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
4: I dont agree with the policy ideas of the Taliban but the real issue with them is how they came to power, and what they might try to do to us over here, not what they believe.

My half the country sees abortion as a criminal assault upon the rights of an innocent person, whom the other half wants to blind fold themselfs and claim does not exist, or is undeserving of said rights at the expense of the mothers 'right' to a convince form of birth control.

We too find your behavior in this issue barbaric, killing millions of innocent people simply to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. Killing and subjugating large numbers of people so that they might follow decent rules however is not a solution I find thinkable.

5: A) Lets be frank there were no legitimate federal laws for which women should be uniquely concerned. Also the number of states and cities that allowed women to vote varied over time, women who wanted to vote had plenty to choose from, around 12+ if my brief research is any indication and judging by their ability to get an amendment passed they would have had 36+ and eventually all of them if they had really wanted to do it in a respectful way.

I wouldn't have a problem if there were states in which men were not allowed to vote. There is almost certainly something to be learned from such an experiment.

B) Are you telling me that Roe V. Wade was the result of a deliberate democratic political strategy to overthrow the agreed upon limits of the Federal Constitution and impose their values upon everyone?

If so we kind of figured that decades ago, although we believe the plot is more generally to use to the lawless nature of said courts to make laws the left could not get thou the legislator.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
6: The fact that a law is sexist doesn't in itself make it worth of our attention. We do not have time to worry about every little abuse. There are far more fundamental problems the what is left of the Federal Constitutional Republic.

7: Well I could just site the Dissents from Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) who both shared the same lack of mention in the Constitution concern.
But if your going to only talk about the merits of the Constitution as hand picked Federal politicians in black robes agreed to it. Then I really don't see the point in any conversation at all, as the unaccountable black robes will tell you what to believe on a case by case basis.
I presume you must find the Alto opinion just as 'correct'.

8. If i became a supreme court justice i would indeed vote to nullify much of the federal laws before me. This however is not the ideal way to restore the Federal government to its constitutional box given the instability of that position.

9. State law defines when the protection of the right to life begins. The whole point is the Federal Constitution doesn't address the issue at all.

[RolandCuthbert]

4. You don’t agree with the policies of the Taliban? In what area? We know for certain you don’t believe in the ideas of this Republic. Right? The very foundation of this Constitutional Republic is that via the Constitution, citizens have rights that cannot be taken away. You, like they, believe that your superstitious or religious beliefs can be coded into the law. And that majority rules, even when voters are disenfranchised. You also don’t believe in the words of the Founding Fathers who said, “we cannot have a tyranny of the majority”.

And no, half the country does not see that abortion is a criminal offense. If you believed that, you would support a referendum on abortion. No anti-abortion supporter would agree to that. You wouldn’t even agree to put it to a vote on a state level. And like I said, this is about your superstitious beliefs over when life begins in the womb. Your position is not about the law.

5. Nothing in this post approaches rational thought. Legitimate federal laws? In who’s opinion, your own? What does it matter if a woman could vote in a state, if she could not vote in a Federal election? And in these states this fight was won town by town, county by county and state by state until ultimately they were fully enfranchised in 1920. The point again is you pretend this did not change the landscape of our politics. And again, that is not being rational.

6. Uhm. . . yes. I am telling you Roe V Wade was the result of decades of planning and strategy. You pretend that one day a group of Justices just forgot about the law. That’s your explanation and again, it is not rational.

[RolandCuthbert]

6. It doesn’t make it worth YOUR attention. Don’t speak for me or for anyone else. Speak for those who agree with your nonsensical positions. We all know that if a law affected you personally, you would literally be on the roof of your house or apartment screaming. And the weird thing is, I would not challenge your view in speaking about the rights you feel were personally violated. That would be disingenuous, just like you have become in this conversation. And a woman losing her life over your superstitious beliefs might be more than just a little abuse.

7. Yes, I want to debate the Supreme Court Justice opinions. You appear to dislike the structure of the Federal government. So your debate is not with me. It is with the Founders of the Constitution. I can’t help you with that. I am simply not going to debate the beliefs of a religious extremist. I don’t subscribe to your philosophy so why would I care about your opinion on the Supreme Court? I don’t think religion or superstition belong in court cases or should factor into the law.

8. I know. That’s probably why you didn’t find a fruitful career in law.

9. State law cannot override rights derived from the Constitution. How many times do I have to post that? Women have rights you cannot take away over your religious or superstitious concerns. And a state court, politician, etc. cannot even definitively determine when life begins. They, like you, can only tell me about your religion or superstition.

That has no place in determining the law.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
1: Sorry i am not intending to give you the impression of a fantasy with my speculation on a hypothetical meaning to your "what federal act"? question.
I'm simply trying to answer said question which makes no sense without such speculation as to what you might be referring to by privacy act.

2: Given you care only for the current opinion of federal politician in black robes, I find myself wondering why you started this question in the first place. Just accept whatever is given to you no point in discussing it.

3: I'm afraid I did not say the political landscape was not changed. I simply said women have voted in the USA since day 1, I also pointed out that there were still sexist laws indicating their vote had not abolished them, and that there should be few if any domestic laws sexist or otherwise at the federal level.
That said the political landscape was changed by the court as well.

4: I'm afraid States long could and have refused to permit women from divorcing their husbands for far less significant reasons. So once again you seem to be incorrect about the Federal Constitution, although I grant you your State Constitution might prevent such.

If you don't respect the text of a Constitution as written and understood for hundreds of years, you have a few unaccountable oligarchs making said choices on a case by case basis not a Constitution which can protects anything at all.

5: Before the 11 southern states declared independence, slavery was indeed a State issue with no plans to change that fact. Slavery didn't cease to be a State issue until the 13th amendment in December of 1865 well after said war had ended. The amendment ended slavery in the State of Kentucky, the only State that still had slaves at that point.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
4:
A: The Taliban are as extreme to one side as you are to the other.

B: if that what your 'certain' about, then you seem to be talking to a completely different person or referring to a completely different republic then these united States.

C: The Constitutional Federal Republic of theses united States was created to help protect a broad number of right by protecting the States founded to do the same and keeping itself limited.

5: Lets be honest I have been having a great deal of trouble identifying rational thought or even a historically correct idea in your text.
Given how you falsely attribute believes and concepts to me as illustrated in 1 and 4 recently, it seems there isn't very much commutation here.
You seem to be leaning too much on on per-constructed notions not relevant to me.

Thus bring us back to issues 8 where you were leaning too much on regurgitating the ideas of the very politicians you asked to discussed.
If you don't want to discuss an idea or a legal opinion don't tell us you do.

6: If you had been reading what i been writing you might have read me telling you several times i believe the Warren and Burger court were just as consistency lawless with such behavior in the 50s 60s and 70;s they seemed to be pushing their own agenda without regard to the written law.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. No. You are simply providing another rabbit hole to explore. This has nothing to do with our debate about privacy.

2. I don't care for only the current opinion. I care for the totality of what the court has said on privacy. The case was decided 7-2 originally for Roe. 7-2 for Griswold. 9-0 for Loving. 5-4 for Obergefell. And 5-4 for overturning Roe. And no, I don't accept whatever is given to me. No one will take my Constitutional rights from me. You can continue to spin my words. But everything else you say about my position is a lie.

3. You said the political landscape changed. It is funny how you don't even remember you own position now. You said it changed due to Justices overturning centuries of precedent. And those changes were not due to women and other groups fully realizing their constitutional rights. So for you, nothing changed with people's views. They didn't change their views on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The court just changed and ruled against popular opinion. Again, that is not rational.

4. Again, this is not rational thinking. As you keep telling me that a state can take away a person's Constitutional rights. That is incorrect. You have a nonsensical position as you keep saying the Constitution does nothing. And only defines all the nothing it can do. That everything I have can be taken by a state, simply because of majority rules. James Madison, for the second time, said that is the "tyranny of the majority". Again, we are a Constitutional Republic. Not some majority rules democracy.

[RolandCuthbert]

4. But weirdly not as extreme as you are. I would imagine they grant their citizens at least some rights that cannot be taken away without great difficulty.

You don't understand what defines a Constitutional Republic. As James Locke said; "all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away."

A state cannot override my Constitutional rights.

5. I don't really care what is relevant to you. I just wanted to show that your religious and superstitious concerns cannot override the law. You take your notions about sex, pregnancy, race, and whatever. . . and you try to code these feelings, emotions, and mythology into law under the guise of "majority rules". When your methods don't even rely upon a referendum to prove the majority agrees with you. It relies upon the ability to manipulate the political system. Then when your opponents maniuplate the system in their favor, you whine about it.

6. Again, I don't care what you think of the opinions of Justices you do not like. I only care about their interpretation of the Constitution. I mean, you don't even have an objective view of how the politics of this nation changed. You pretend the prevailing opinion is still similar to that of Americans in the 1700s.

That is simply not a rational thought.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert

1: I don't have a real question to answer.

2: So you only care about post 1940's Federal politician's Big Government opinion's you agree with but not all opinions. That's what i thought you were saying.

if your not going to debate the merits of either those opinions nor contrary opinions there I don't see the point of this conversation or your expressed desire to "discuss the ruling".

I get it that you only want to discuss it so long as both sides agree with your opinion.

Well I've made the case too many times already all of those 'opinions' listed were built upon the presumption of an unwritten rules in the Federal Constitution.

You don't want to discuss why theses rules were aparently being violated from ratification for 90-225 years until these same federal "judges" meraculaturly discovered those new unwritten "rules" turning our political world upside down with them.

Yet you seem to think that is still legitimate and expect us to take them seriously as 'judges' rather than what we might call any other unelected and unaccountable group of people who radically changes the rules we live under, oligarchs.

You don't seem to want to talk about why common law doesn't allow legitimate judges to do this kind of thing.
You just want to marvel at the boldness or natural 'justice' of their "discovery". And threaten anyone who doesn't live by their newly discovered rules.

Well enjoy your former oligarch worship, I'm sorry you don't like the latest set of olgarchs but no oligarchy is forever.

[monorprise]

@RolandCuthbert
4:
A. right... why don't you go there and find out.

B. His name was John Locke, and there are indeed "inalienable" natural rights. One of the most fundamentally of theses is the right to throw off oppressive government. Unfortunately Lincoln and the North didn't see it that way anymore than you see the rights of people in other state's right to live under government they see fit outside of your rules.

Such rights are NOT in the Federal Constitution, which is instead a document of ceded rights, in defining what little the Federal Government can do, leaving all others rights and powers to the people or their States. You would know this if you actually read the 11 page document.

Listing an infinite spectrum of natural rights in a document is impossible.

As it happens if the right to kill was ever among such 'inalienable' (not cedeable) rights it would not be always among the first right we cede in exchange for the security of not being killed.

5: You have shown me that you have no will or ability to have a conversation about a Constitution law.

Not caring apparently about law or history you dont like. You will just have to watch us do our own thing.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Moving on.

2. Why would I post opinions on privacy that are in the absolute minority? Do you know of a ruling on privacy that was in your favor? You posted about two dissents thus far. And again, I don't have an "opinion" on my rights. I have rights. Period. If you wish take those rights away from me, you will have to prepare for a fight. I am not sure why would I have to post about opinions that disagree with my right to life, privacy, etc. That is nonsensical. Do you often question your own right to life? Or are you sane?

I do want to discuss how these rules were overturned. But again, your point is that women and other groups were disinterested in the past and present with their own rights to privacy and to life. And I find that point a disingenuous lie.

I expect you to take the Constitution seriously. That is true. If you don't like the judicial system, there is nothing I can do for you other than offer some disingenuous pity. And I would watch whom I call an oligarch. Not when your position is that a state can violate a person's Constitutional rights, simply because it wants to. I do not worship oligarchs. I worship the Constitutional rights that I have and I am not going to let anyone take those rights away. You can go worship der fuhrer, Jim Jones or whatever extremist monarch you think should wield totalitarian control. Don't expect me or other people to follow you.

[RolandCuthbert]

4. Why don't you? Again, they reflect your ideology moreso than mine. I don't believe that a majority can violate someone's Constitutional rights. You do.

b. So the oppressive government isn't the one that tells a woman it is investigating her a miscarriage? It isn't the one who decides whether or not a woman can/should receive life saving care, because it has elevated the rights of an unborn fetus? It isn't the government that decides to ban life saving birth control medicine because of its superstitious beliefs. . . even as birth control can be used to remedy many different ailments, like uncontrolled periods that can literally cause a woman to bleed to death?

That government isn't oppressive. It is just the one that forces you to acknowledge the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of your fellow citizens.

You are a disingenuous liar.

The rights to privacy and to life are in the Constitution. And you have been proven wrong countless times.

Right now you are speaking in tongues. The right to kill? That is an insane thought. That is a thought that does not belong in civilized society.

5. You have shown no ability to understand the Constitution at even a 5th grade level. I feel it should be required that all children take a test on the Constitution at age 13. If they cannot pass, then they should not be permitted into high school. But since we are a nation of states rights, a state like yours can permit you be as dumb AF. You have gotten your views from youtube and extremist forums. Not from an actual reading of the Constitution.

[ChrisMaster69]

I personally do not believe it was just abortion that was the point of this ruling.

it was a testing of the water with moving federal to state.

With other targets being same sex marriage and gay rights, also things such as interracial marriage, schooling, all being passed from Federal to individual states to decide.

I think it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors.

How many states will have trigger laws around the above…

[RolandCuthbert]

We know that the religious extremists in this nation, are worried about "White" replacement theory, gay marriage, etc. So of course those issues are next.

The weird thing is Clarence Thomas went along with it.

[zagor]

Why do you consider that weird? Clarence Thomas has been the worst justice on the court since he joined.

Interracial marriage should be safe though. But with him who knows?

[JamesDiaz11]

People are comfortable with simple dichotomies- the GAG community is no different.
I personally can think that the decision to overturn Roe V. Wade was sound because the court did not have the power to restrict bans on abortion. I can also think that abortion is a brutal, barbaric act. And I can also think that abortion should be widely practiced because too many stupid people are breeding.
However, few people can adequately hold a nuanced view on things, and fall into easily defined camps.

[RolandCuthbert]

I don't think this is a case of nuance. I think it is case of not understanding the law, what the law can argue, etc.

Your personal view on abortion on being murder etc. was not at issue in the ruling. That's the thing that is amazing when I talk to folks at GaG. Nothing in the original decision address anything in terms of the supposed unborn being killed. Even in the new decision Alito ruled that abortion was not a right defined in the Constitution, even as the original decision made no such claim.

[Chazmatazz269]

Categorically incorrect. Only a handful of states have banned abortion so far, and a few are expected to follow suit. Two-thirds of US states’ laws have not changed and they will not change. This wasn’t a retrial of the facts of Roe v Wade, it was a challenge to the constitutionality of the original DECISION. The original decision WAS unconstitutional, and therefore overturned. States’ rights take over at this point and for the vast majority of US citizens, nothing has changed and nothing will change. On the contrary, several red states are becoming battle grounds, with good reason. Fortunately, even those states are still fundamentally democracies and the citizens can pressure their representatives to change the laws. If those reps fail or refuse, they can be replaced. The greatest problem with the debate is the misinformation and hyperbole on both sides. There’s a real possibility for a reasonable compromise if both sides could settle on the facts.

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course the original decision was Constitutional. As for what will change, a lot of states have either outlawed abortion already or are moving to enact legislation. I am not sure why you would lie about that.

States' rights do not override Constitutional rights guaranteed to our citizens. Women have the right to life and to privacy. And no state can take that away. That's why this decision is going to be struck down. Either through expanding the court or through legislation. All abortion supporters have to do is decide which path they want to take. They already have the majority of Americans on their side.

And you are talking about hyperbole. My point is the hyperbole is about choice vs life.

This is a Constitutional matter, which is why this ruling will not stand.

[Bricealan]

I am confused

You say you are 50 years old, and the Roe Vs Wade decision was almost exactly 50 years ago, so you were born the year that Supreme Court decision was made?
How is it that you have such accurate information about a woman that was the center of a Supreme Court decision made the year YOU were born?
You claim to have information, that no one else has, or has access to?
What I saw in print said that Clarence Thomas said THEY are coming for LGBTQ or whatever that new 'gimmick' is called, and whatever else they might me 'coming for"
"Private consultation with her doctor" - That was the "real" issue?

[RolandCuthbert]

What the fuck? Dude, Roe V Wade has been discussed and debated for decades. And the thing that is fucked up is so many people have no idea about the decision when all you have to do is google search the Supreme Court. If I were 51 years old. . . I am certain if my folks had me watch a newscast in 1973, my 1 year old self wouldn't have understand what I watching.

So I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

As for Clarence Thomas, his opinion is right here.

If you can't read English, let me know. I can interpret for you. His statement on gay marriage and contraception in his opinion.

What in the sideways fuck is wrong with you?

[RolandCuthbert]

The link didn't copy. I had to type it by hand.

www.supremecourt.gov/.../19-1392_6j37.pdf

The Court’s abortion cases are
unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has
asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amend-
ment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDon-
ald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree
that “[n]othing in [the Cou rt’s] opinion should be under-
stood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abor-
tion.” Ante, at 66.
For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all
of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ-
ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub-
stantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,”
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J.,
concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to
“correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble
v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con-
curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstra -
bly erroneous decisions, the question would remain
whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myr-
iad rights that our substantive due process cases have gen-
erated. For example, we could consider whether any of the
rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process
cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Why do you women want to cosplay terrible characters from a poorly written fictional novel in the US?

Men aren't into Atwood's decrepit fantasies, so you're weird longing to dress up like cultists just makes you look insane.

On a more serious note, the Left in your country has pushed the bar for abortion so low that some women use it like a contraceptive... that's morally disgusting; considering that the unborn has a heart-beat at 6 weeks and is fully formed by 12 weeks.

Sex is the act of reproduction. If this ruling means that women now have to be more conscious about who they are having sex with, and what protection they're both using, it will likely destroy the horrible pick-up culture the West has. Good.

[RolandCuthbert]

Actually before this nonsense started, the number of abortions was declining. Your moral outrage isn't of any interest to me or to most folks who are discussing this subject. Too many supposedly moral people have proven to be hypocrites. So I would rather focus on the law.

And the law says you can't violate a woman's constitutional rights because of how you feel about a fetus or the unborn.

[Opinion Owner]

Even I, as a non American, probably understand your constitution better than you. "The Right of Privacy" is in no way related to abortion whatsoever. From a legal standpoint it cannot be upheld, there is no constitutional foundation or comprehensive connection to support it, which is why it was always meant to be a state matter.

And no. Unlike some guys, I don't just go around having unprotected sex and then expect them to take precautions. These men need to treat the women in their lives better. It takes two. I'm not coming at this from any religious angle, but being entirely bereft of morals doesn't paint you in a good light.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, I am pretty certain you do not have a clue. Of course, most Americans do not, which is why I created the thread. Most arguments are along the lines of choice vs life. Something that is never mentioned or talked about in court cases, because courts must deal with the law. The Constitution is the highest law of the land.

Of course the right of privacy is related to abortion. Because folks like you would investigate a woman for having a miscarriage, since you consider every death of a fetus, the same as a death of a human being. So you would violate a woman's privacy, her intimate conversations with her doctor, look into her treatment and her medical history to prove or disprove she had an abortion.

All for something that the Constitution has clearly defined as not being a person. . . therefore not eligible to receive the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. A woman is a person. The Constitution specifically states that. That is simple objective fact.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States "

That is directly from the Constitution.

[Opinion Owner]

Having the right to privacy doesn't mean I can go and kill someone secretly (including adults), it's the same logical argument - it's legally nonsense. This obviously only passed in the past due to the court being stacked or lobbied. From a legal standpoint it has no grounds.

"Because folks like you would investigate a woman for having a miscarriage." No, no I wouldn't. But I'd point out nonsensical laws and federal overreaches, as I am. If you believe in democracy then having a non-constitutional subject such as abortion being decided at a state level would reflect the opinions of the local electorate.

In places like Virginia, maybe they can even pass their post-birth abortion idea, "And when it’s born, we will make the baby comfortable until the mother decides if she wants it to live or die." - Governor Ralph Northam, 2019. Notice he Specific words he used, "Born, "Baby", hmm.

The "persons" point is conjecture. I don't believe America's founding fathers ever envisioned their ancestors wilfully killing their unborn for convenience sake. America is one of the only countries in the world where you can have an extremely late term abortion; this is after the heart is beating, the body is formed, the brain is functioning - but here come the tongs to tear it apart piece by piece.

They aren't Rare anymore, that was the entire argument being "Safe, Legal & Rare". They're treated as a form of contraception which is disgusting. A baby can't gestate if you use Actual contraceptives, or even have sex at the time of the month she isn't fertile.

"since you consider every death of a fetus, the same as a death of a human being". The unborn Are human beings, what is this logic? So when you were growing in your mother's womb you were some different species? At 12 weeks you are a fully formed premature human. I don't entirely consider it the same as killing someone post-birth, but it's certainly a degree of it.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. So you didn't read my post. Here you are claiming that the right to privacy doesn't give you the right to kill someone. I am not even sure how to respond to a statement so devoid of rational thinking. No one claims you can kill a person. We are talking about a woman's right to privacy should her pregnancy be terminated either by tragic accident, negligence, or by choosing an abortion.

2. No, a woman's rights is non-negotiable. The Constitution is clear on that. You can't compromise her rights for your superstitious or religious beliefs. You claim to know the Constitution, when the Constitution explicitly says no state shall pass laws that infringe upon the rights of citizens. There is no local authority that can take away Constitutional rights. So you have no idea how the federal government functions with respect to state or local jurisdictions.

3. I have no idea what you are posting about Ralph Northam for. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It does not care about the opinion of a governor.

4. The Constitution has no terms in it regarding abortion. It doesn't talk about late-term abortion. It doesn't talk about beating hearts. It doesn't talk about gestation. It says that a person is either born or naturalized. And only persons can have rights. In the Roe V Wade decision, the court ruled that a fetus was not a person. Even in the current ruling Alito never even mentions the words fetus or life. Because the court is not a medical body. It cannot determine when a fetus becomes a person. And Constitution already outlines when rights are conferred to an individual.

[RolandCuthbert]

5. You can make any claim you wish about the founding fathers. We do not take rights away because of someone's wishes. And that is why this decision will be reversed, either through legislation or by expanding the court. Then we will have to take steps to secure the rights of citizens. Because it is evident some people do not believe that the rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution are for everyone.

[Opinion Owner]

The semantics of personhood makes your side of the argument incredibly murky.

"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."

When it comes to the unborn they are alive until aborted, Roe made them unprotected by state laws; and as the offspring of two individuals they are thus the property of both citizens - not one.

As such, Roe V Wade violated the 14th amendment itself, making it internally contradictory.

"All persons born" may be citizens, but that distinction means that "persons" include the unborn as well. Humans develop at a surprising speed, from embryonic to proto baby in a under 3 months - from that stage it relies on it's mother to incubate it until it grows to a survivable stage.

[RolandCuthbert]

You have an opinion that a fetus is alive. And you are using that opinion to make the claim they have rights that can supercede the rights we all know the mother has. I don't see how my side is murky. The Constitution says that all persons are born or naturalized. Find me a passage that says fetuses qualify with no ambuguity.

Roe simply said that there is no provision conferring rights to a fetus. Therefore you cannot violate a woman's rights for something that is not considered to be a person.

And no, that is your opinion that all persons born. . . which means they have to be birthed, somehow confers personhood. The statement makes nonsense. Why would you include the language of the birthing process if not to explain when rights are conferred. If the statement supported your opinion, it would simply say "all persons born or unborn".

You are playing around with words using your gift of semantics to take rights away from women. When there is no opinion making the claim that they do not have rights.

The funny thing is, we have an opinion from the court, that challenged the personhood of a fetus. We do not have that in the case of women.

[Aerissa_Jade]

Too many feel with emotions and do not care about the actual legal argument. They don't want to (or simply do not have the capability) to understand the legal argument behind it.

Just as the SCOTUS did not outlaw abortion, they just gave back some state rights... so many think they outlawed it, they are fools that do not understand.

[RolandCuthbert]

True that. The actual debate should be over. . . whether or not states are violating women's constitutional rights. Which was how the original ruling framed the conversation.

We can disagree over that. But at least the conversation would be more understandable.

[loveslongnails]

Thank GOD for you describing what the issue is really about!! Well done, Sir. Let me highlight this part again:

"This abortion ruling no longer offers women protection against the state interfering with their decisions to abort when their safety is threatened.

Because even if you are in a state that might grant you an exception because of the mother's life is in danger, it won't matter. The decision to abortion is not made by a doctor. It is made by an appointee or a board that has no medical training, so they get to decide whether or not your life is under threat".

And to the "pro-birthers" who read it, why would you celebrate that? Hasn't it occurred to you that the "state's intention" is not only to limit your right to make a healthy decision, but the curtail your ability to even GET that INFORMATION, in privacy, from a doctor?

[loveslongnails]

I need to add some more. If we're going to talk about why Roe got bounced, we need to examine the courts reasoning, which is explained here:
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721

The right to abortion does not fall within this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy.
The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate
sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.

[loveslongnails]

The court's decision is essentially saying - Even though the court acknowledges that the 14th Amendment has been held to guarantee some rights NOT mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn't view abortion to be a right that should be Federally Protected because it is "NOT deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The real and present danger is now that 5 Conservative judges, one of whom lied during his confirmation hearing, now get to decide what is "deeply rooted in this Nation's History and tradition", when cases arise about things not mentioned specifically in the Constitution. And that's a lot of things. This is what you should be scared about, along with absolute abortion bans.

[RolandCuthbert]

The problem is that the original decision did not reference abortion directly. The court was primarily concerned that a woman's right to privacy was being violated. But also in extreme cases, her right to life was being challenged on the basis of an evaluation that could claim that there was no threat to her life if she was forced to carry the pregnancy to term.

But you are right, we cannot really think that with justices who are religious or political extremists, we are going to see measured and responsible assessments of what rights we are entitled to.

And that is terrifying.

[msc545]

This is not true:

"The decision to abortion is not made by a doctor. It is made by an appointee or a board that has no medical training. So they get to decide whether or not your life is under threat."

Yes, there is some person that technically makes the decision, but that person has read the medical reports and sometimes talked to the doctor, and it is unheard of for that person to not follow the doctor's recommendations.

You are relying on anecdote, melodrama, and partial truth to make your points. None of that is persuasive.

[RolandCuthbert]

Nothing you post here is truth. In fact, in a state where abortion is banned after a certain amount of weeks a couple were being counseled by a doctor. He made the determination that they needed to have an abortion before the pregnancy endangered the wife. He sent the recommendation to the state board, who promptly refused his recommendation.

He told the couple to leave the state immediately and get an abortion in a state where it was legal. Because time was precious.

The weird thing is. . . at this point that very act would be illegal in some states. Leaving the state to get an abortion and then returning. It is already law in Texas. And Missouri is trying to enact a similar statute.

It is weird how you refuse to acknowledge the simple facts about leaving these decision up to state government with no Federal oversight.

[msc545]

What state was this and how do you have knowledge of this supposed case?

[RolandCuthbert]

You are kidding right? The stories are everywhere. The couple gave an television interview, they were from Texas. You guys refuse to deal with the ramifications of having politicians decide if a woman's life is in danger.

www.tommys.org/.../tfmr-terminating-pregnancy-medical-reasons

The offer of termination

You are likely to be offered a termination if the baby has been diagnosed with a condition that can cause death or serious disability. You may also be offered a termination if a pregnancy complication poses a threat to your life.

You should not feel under pressure to end your pregnancy. Whatever is diagnosed, it is your choice and your healthcare professionals will support you whatever decision you make.

[msc545]

There is nothing in what you have provided. that indicates a politician or non-medical person makes any decisions regarding abortion or not. This is your own flawed interpretation.

[RolandCuthbert]

Sir, you are the one who is totally irrational. I don't have to prove anything.

If a woman needs an abortion in Texas for a high risk pregnancy in Texas, please instruct the forum as to how she can get one.

Because she cannot.

I was merely gave an example of happened before the ruling. After Roe v Wade has been struck down, there is no protection for women who are experiencing a high risk pregnancy, because what is considered to be high risk is at a state's discretion. If you claim that the ruling states something different, prove it.

[msc545]

You are simply speculating as this situation has not occurred as yet. You may be right about what you say, or you may be wrong. Maybe wait and see?

[RolandCuthbert]

If a state has no legalized abortion, that isn't speculation. That is an objective reality that you do not want to recognize.

[msc545]

You're a far-off your original topic. Legalized abortion or not legalized abortion does not equate to a government official deciding which women are in danger and which women are not.

[RolandCuthbert]

So if a woman can't get an abortion. Even one when her health is in danger, that does not mean the state took her rights away.

You are not a rational person.

[msc545]

It is unclear who the "state" is and who acts for the state in your example. Your thinking, such as it is, is very sloppy.

[msc545]

Tired of your ridiculous argument.

[RolandCuthbert]

It is not unclear. You claim the "state" that a person lives in has the power and authority to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, incest and danger of the life of the mother. This directly violates the mother's right to life and privacy.

Because you certainly don't claim the state has no right to intervene in a doctor/patient decision making process.

That's what this is about.

[msc545]

If the state makes an adverse decision, it directly violates the unborn child's rights to life and privacy. You cannot have it both ways.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are not making any sense.

The Constitution specifically outlines the rights that a woman has.

It does not do that for fetuses.

You are the one trying to have it both ways.

[msc545]

In what part of the Constitution are the rights of women enumerated?

[RolandCuthbert]

Are you kidding me? The part where it says "all persons born or naturalized".

Fetuses are not born. Nor are they naturalized.

What is wrong with you?

[msc545]

So in your opinion that makes it not a person?

[RolandCuthbert]

My opinion?

Son. . . those words are written in the Constitution. If that is opinion, then everything is opinion.

[msc545]

So again according to you, an unborn child has no rights? Try to just answer the question.

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, those words are written in the Constitution. Take a Constitution course and perhaps one on law.

1. We are not arguing a nationwide ban on abortion. We are arguing Roe V Wade.

2. Again, the original decision was made on a woman's right to privacy and to life. As the decision to abortion can be for a variety of things best left up to a woman to decide with her doctor.

3. Your view was supposed to be not what the Constitution says about a fetus' rights, which we both know it says nothing. But you were supposed to be arguing that the state had the right to decide when a fetus' life was more important than the mother's, how much risk should the mother have to take on, forcing a woman to have her rapist child, etc.

But at this point, you don't even appear to be thinking rationally, as you just claimed that according to me a fetus has no rights.

I only know this, a woman certainly has rights. And you cannot violate those rights because of your religious extremism.

[msc545]

Let's stop arguing this point. Kill all the babies you want if you can.

[RolandCuthbert]

Like I said, religious extremism doesn't make for good laws.

[msc545]

you are making an assumption about me without any evidence.

[RolandCuthbert]

So you are going to claim your opinion about a fetus is based upon some legal, scientific and/or medical fact?

[msc545]

you miss the point. I am not religious at all.

[RolandCuthbert]

But do you speak English?

Are you saying your claims about a fetus is based upon a factual medical opinion?

[msc545]

A fetus (unborn child) is alive.

[RolandCuthbert]

I am not asking again.

Based upon who's opinion? Because again, if this opinion is rendered by a doctor, then all decisions should be between the doctor and his patient.

[Kiran_Yagami]

Even if I agreed with absolutely everything you said on abortion, so what? Take those arguments to your state legislature. Roe v. Wade isn't about a woman and her doctor. It's about the federal government and the states. I am always against adding more power to the federal government. Roe v. Wade removed the federal government from abortion entirely. This is a good thing. The power now resides with the states, which is where it resided to begin with. All of your arguments for or against abortion still apply, you're just trying to convince a different governing body. A smaller governing body. If you believe in abortion to you core, then good. Go to your state legislature and make your case.

[RolandCuthbert]

No, it is not a good thing. It invites peril for women and it actually creates a situation where state governments become involved in a woman's medical decisions.

And that is insane.

[Kiran_Yagami]

"It invites peril for women and it actually creates a situation where state governments become involved in a woman's medical decisions."

As opposed to where the federal government does it? The federal government is not granted the power to rule on abortion one way or the other. The 10th amendment of the constitution states that any power not delegated to the federal government by the constitution itself either resides with the states or with the people. Again, that's a good thing. If you don't want your state to be involved in a woman's medical decisions, then go to your state legislature and make that argument. Why do you refuse to do that?

[RolandCuthbert]

Oh that is a disingenuous argument. Because that is precisely what Roe V Wade stated.

No government body should be making a decision about who's life is more important, the woman's the child's.

But additionally the ruling complicates things when it comes to rape and miscarriages. Would you investigate a woman on a tip that she had an abortion instead of a miscarriage?

If a woman is raped, but her accuser gets off, can she get an abortion? What if she wins a civil suit, but not the criminal case? What if her rapist gets off. . . but then gets convicted of another rape. Is there is any compensation for forcing her to carry that baby to term?

It is just a stupid silly mess, when you don't rule on this at the federal level.

[Kiran_Yagami]

The only thing disingenuous is you, because you refuse to make the argument where it will actually count. The federal government has nothing to do with abortion now, and that's how it should be.

"No government body should be making a decision about who's life is more important, the woman's the child's."

The world is an imperfect place, but again, the possibility you ask for could still exist if you actually bothered taking your case to the appropriate governing body. The fact that you won't just shows that you don't actually care. What you really care about is the politics.

"If a woman is raped, but her accuser gets off, can she get an abortion? What if she wins a civil suit, but not the criminal case? What if her rapist gets off. . . but then gets convicted of another rape. Is there is any compensation for forcing her to carry that baby to term?"

State legislature -----> that way.

"It is just a stupid silly mess, when you don't rule on this at the federal level."

It was a mess even when Roe v. Wade was a thing. How do you think we got to this point? Because states kept making it an issue, even pro-choice states. Abortion advocates trying to push through laws that allowed abortion even after the fetus left the womb (which is called a baby) is what brought us to this point. Now every state gets to make its own rules and they don't have to ask the supreme court's permission.

[RolandCuthbert]

Your argument is nonsensical. Who does the Constitution confer rights to? The mother or the fetus? If you claim the fetus, you are lying.

The Constitution recognizes no rights for a fetus. There is nothing in that document talking about eggs, sperm, conception or anything. The Constitution recognizes personhood after birth, that's it.

So with that established, the point of Roe V Wade was that states kept violating women's rights by passing legislation that banned abortion even in cases of rape, incest or when the health of the mother was threatened. States were treating miscarriages as though they were murder investigations violating a woman' privacy.

Here you are saying if a state violates a woman constitutional rights that is just tough luck. Women are people too. And there is no doubt the Constitution recognizes their personhood. You pushing your religious or mysognistic views into law is not rational. And the original decision recognized that.

This decision is nonsensical because it actually claims that the only right being violated is just a right to an abortion.

That is a lie.

And it is also a lie fetuses were being killed after birth. That isn't even a rational statement. Because again, the Constitution confers personhood, after birth.

[Kiran_Yagami]

"Your argument is nonsensical. Who does the Constitution confer rights to? The mother or the fetus? If you claim the fetus, you are lying."

You're the one not making any sense. The Constitution does not make any rights or laws on abortion one way or the other. If you claim it does, you are lying.

"No government body should be making a decision about who's life is more important, the woman's the child's."

Part of the government's job is to advocate for those who are unable to do so for themselves. There is no getting around the fact that at some point, somewhere, someone is going to have to decide who's life is more important, the baby's or the mother's. Like I said, it's an imperfect world.

"Here you are saying if a state violates a woman constitutional rights that is just tough luck. Women are people too."

Abortion is not a Constitutional right. The state can't violate something that doesn't exist.

"Women are people too. And there is no doubt the Constitution recognizes their personhood."

So are babies, so the argument is a wash. You have to weigh one life against another no matter how you slice it and dice it.

"This decision is nonsensical because it actually claims that the only right being violated is just a right to an abortion."

I'm not claiming any rights are being violate at all, because there was no right to abortion to begin with. You claiming there is a Constitutional right to abortion is the lie.

"And it is also a lie fetuses were being killed after birth. That isn't even a rational statement. Because again, the Constitution confers personhood, after birth."

No, babies being killed after birth actually happened. Of course it wasn't rational, but it happened anyways because abortion advocates went off the rails. That's a big reason why all of this came to head to begin with.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are confused. I never asked you about abortion being mentioned in the Constitution. Stop being disingenuous and answer the question.

1. To whom does the Constitution grant the right to life and to privacy?

The Constitution does not recognize the fetus as a person. So the government has no right to violate the Constitutional rights of women on behalf of an entity that the Constitution does not recognize as a person. There is no getting around that point. And emotional platitudes does not change the language of the Constitution. And the funny thing is. . . this is exactly what your argument says. That we must honor faithfully what the Constitution has outlined.

You can keep pretending I am claiming abortion is a right. Your lies does not change my argument. The Constitution does not recognize the personhood of a fetus. If it did, it would confer personhood to men, women, children, and fetuses.

And of course, again. . . your claim that children were being killed after birth is a lie. The Constitution clearly recognizes personhood at birth.

[dragoblack]

Interesting read but to put it simply.. people only look at surface level and never the details, especially with the pro-life people who are actually pro-birth (they can give less of a shite what happens after the baby is born). Every time i hear a pro-life person speak it is like someone with no idea about guns, pretending to be an expert on how guns work. Pro-life people only see a woman not taking responsibility for having sex and never sees the reason why the clinics exist aside from that. Abortion clinics serve more than abortion needs and abortions can save the lives of many.

[Hogoblin_of_Venice]

You say pro life people dont care about the child after its born, ok in what way? Give some examples please of what you mean.

[RolandCuthbert]

Thank you. This is precisely what I mean. Most folks have no idea about the actual legal argument. Nor do they understand how these laws work in reality.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Hogoblin_of_Venice The United States has one of the worst child poverty rates in the developed world.

How do you not know this?

www.statista.com/.../

[Hogoblin_of_Venice]

Yeah, poor is better than dead. And trying to predict how happy EVERYONE born into poverty will end up being dicey.

Can you say that 100% of every child aborted will have lived a miserable crappy life? Can you do that?

[dragoblack]

Is it possible to say that? Yes, it actually is due to the economy & the parents living situation since in the usa the laws are designed to keep poor people poor and make it extremely hard to get out of homelessness. But another thing you don't understand is banning abortion, is just as useless as banning guns. People will always get their hands on guns and coat hanger abortions will come back along with other self-injury inflicting methods. Banning abortions also targets the entire clinic along with miscarriages because politicians dont understand how abortion works and specify abortion under "removal of a fetus". Por life people do not see the full picture or the reality of the situation

[RolandCuthbert]

@Hogoblin_of_Venice So you are changing your argument because we can easily prove that the U. S. child poverty rate is abysmal. Now you claim that oh. . . that's better than being dead. The point is your reasoning was flawed. And you changed your argument because you are disingenuous.

[schittywok]

@RolandCuthbert What does poverty have to do with jack shit? If people can't afford kids, they shouldn't fuck. Or at least get the contraceptives thing happening. If they don't women should keep their legs shut and men should suffice with fucking an arm pit. If the baby does get born and they can't support it, it goes to adoption agencies or dropped off at Fire Departments or Emergency Rooms.

[RolandCuthbert]

@schittywok Talk to you boy. He said that pro-lifers care so much about what happens to children after they are born.

That's a lie. And our poverty rate proves it.

As for the rest of your comments, they are just pure ignorance, nonsense, and toilet doo-doo.

[ADrifter]

@Hogoblin_of_Venice Of course pro-lifers don't care. They will be among the first and foremost to point & laugh at a woman with a disabled child that could've been aborted. They will be among the first and foremost to point & laugh & say "well she should've kept her legs closed" to a woman who had to birth a child of rape.

Such is obvious in their antics. They even have the GALE to refer to religion when there's nothing in the Bible that actually refers to abortion or anything like it

[Hogoblin_of_Venice]

No it isn't and you know it isn't.

[RolandCuthbert]

@schittywok And society doesn't give a fuck about loser incel trolls who can't get laid. We don't give a fuck about your little Napoleon complexes where you get back at all the women who rejected your awkward ass and fucked your best friends.

Eat your heart out.

[Hogoblin_of_Venice]

Well that was a screed. This was pretty civil til you f##ked it up so niw Stfu you moron mangyna. Your not as smart as you think you are. And just in case you Choose to miss that I will repeat it so you do not.

You are not##cking smart.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Hogoblin_of_Venice I know you are not talking to me. This dude is talking about society covering my mistakes. When;

1. Me and my lady would pay for our abortion if we wanted one.

2. And we wouldn't want one. We both do not agree with abortion.

So since that turd can't do anything but make lazy ignorant accusations and lie about my position, I put him in his place. If you want to storm off mad, do so. Because nothing you posted even resembled logic or a grasp of legal thought. So it isn't like this was an actual debate.

[ADrifter]

@schittywok You know people may not look at you as being a moron if you could convey what you are saying without insulting others.

[ADrifter]

@schittywok Are you as stupid as you honestly sound? As uneducated as someone who failed high school? With the ROE vs Wade situation that means the regulations are done to state & even local level so it abortion is ILLEGAL a woman doesn't have much say does she?

[ADrifter]

@schittywok Ah so I was right. You ARE as stupid as you sound & you ARE as uneducated as a high school failure. Come back if you ever get some intelligence. Above the staggering IQ of 60 you have.

What when you just said that a woman of rape or incest won't keep a babe but with this new decision she may not have a choice, you dimwit.

[ADrifter]

@schittywok What are you blubbering about like a worthless turd?

[RolandCuthbert]

@schittywok Haha! Stop being a pathetic pitiful incel loser. I don't understand you guys. You get mad at women because you can't get laid. Just go buy a prostitute dude. Then pretend like it is your girlfriend or something.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ADrifter There is no intelligence there to respond to. Just name him as another worthless incel, frustrated because he doesn't get any sex.

[ADrifter]

@RolandCuthbert - I figured as much but it is amusing how he goes off on a tirade. Most of which makes little to no sense - it's not even an actual response to what I say, per se. It's very obvious that he requires medication/medical help. @schittywok - seek help.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ADrifter All because he can't get any access to sex.

We need to legalize prostitution yesterday. These dudes will end up killing us all along with themselves.

[RolandCuthbert]

@schittywok You are not a conservative. You are a lunatic rambling extremist fruitcake. . . who is mad because he has to whack off alone in his bedroom.

[ADrifter]

@RolandCuthbert - you say we should legalize prostitution, it'd help. But sterilization may be a better idea. You know if they "luck upon" a prostitute that's desperate enough & has a kid with such people the mentality just carried on for the next generation.

[ADrifter]

@schittywok So what is your ideology. Entertain me without being insulting. And by the way I'm not Canadian but keep up with your delusions.

[RolandCuthbert]

@schittywok Of course you rape. You rape because you can't get any sex. You do fuck children and not only that, you try to marry them. Because you are immature extremist mysogynistic freak. You cannot contend with adult women. So you want access to 13 year olds. You want them before they can develop a sense of self-worth, confidence and esteem. You want them totally dependent upon you. All you want is a house-cleaning baby maker.

And you have lost your entire mind because too many women want no part of that.

And you are an incel. You are a pitiful pathetic piece of anti-social bullshit. . . that will burn down all of society. . . simply because you can't get your rocks off.

I don't a fuck.

Learn how to date you fucking awkward turd.

[RolandCuthbert]

@schittywok Dude, that's thing. You will still be slapping your balls with Gold Powder. You will still be sucking a tranny's cock.

You just will be doing it undercover. No one buys the bullshit that you are all anti-gay, anti-tranny. . . you will still be getting fucked up the ass. We know you like it. It is all about image for you. You want to project an image of masculinity. But if you were masculine, you could get a woman. The problem is they sense the bitch in you and they want no part of it. So your plan is to pretend like you are this family man. . . while a tranny named Jim is pounding your ass in some run down motel.

You ain't fooling nobody son.

[RolandCuthbert]

@schittywok You are not going to call her the c-word here. She hasn't called you a name or spoken in a disgusting tone like you have. You are not going to hurl abuse at her for having her own mind and having different views than you. You will get your cowardly lying, pathetic ass out of my thread.

That's what you are going to do, if that happens.

[ADrifter]

@RolandCuthbert - Thank you, it is as you said. It's sad & pathetic really. And honestly makes you wonder if he has any friends in real life. Even his "friend" Jim has to be paid.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ADrifter Says the pitiful lying cowardly incel troll.

haha! Go suck yourself off loser. Next month, me and my girlfriend will be vacationing in Dusseldorf. I will post the photos here. Eat your heart out.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ADrifter Sorry, that was meant for him. Clicked on the wrong post.

[ADrifter]

@schittywok - Just because it says Canada on profile doesn't mean I am Canadian. Just where I may live. That doesn't mean I care for their politics or politicians. I could be British, I could be American. I could be Russian for all you know. @RolandCuthbert - he's a bit of a true odd ball & no worries about wrong post.

[RolandCuthbert]

@schittywok Nah. . . was just overexcited to insult a pitiful pathetic troll loser.

:D

[RolandCuthbert]

@ADrifter I am done with it.

[ADrifter]

@RolandCuthbert - you lasted longer than me. Lol. Obviously, schittywok needs medication and/or to be medicated. Unless it is all in a show there is something quite definitely wrong with them.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ADrifter Well, I would have talked to him longer. But you see, he didn't want to talk to me. He wanted to talk to you because you were observing rules for discussion, etc.

I, on the other hand, was just calling him the dog turd that he was.

[ADrifter]

@RolandCuthbert - well if you want me to I can poke him and start it all over again. I've finished work for a client (graphics) and just wasting time with a day off.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ADrifter Nah, I am good. You can participate in my other thread with @po1989. He isn't too insulting. And he has a semblance of several strategies to justify banning abortion. He kind of jumps around from argument to argument. I am interested in your view and would like to see them flushed out a bit.

Thanks in advance for any response.

[ADrifter]

@RolandCuthbert - hi, sure, sounds good with me.

[RolandCuthbert]

@ADrifter Uhm. . . I changed my mind, he is just another troll.

I tried to show an example of how rights are violated when a family suffers the tragedy of a miscarriage. He didn't address it and used their grief as a reason to investigate a miscarriage as murder.

So he is just a disgusting troll.

[Anonymous]

The original Roe decision was unfounded. Determining whether something is a crime or not by examining your right to privacy while committing it is pretty dumb. Example: You don't have the right to abuse someone in your home as a corollary to your constitutional right to privacy in your home.

All the SCOTUS did was nullify a nonsense precedent and send the issue back to the states to determine. People need to fight this in their state courts. In accordance with the 10th amendment, the ruling is constitutionally sound, so all these protestors are barking up the wrong tree, and they're going to miss the opportunity to have their voices heard in the proper forum

[RolandCuthbert]

Nothing you said here made any sense. In order for you to make the claim of murder, which the new decision never even approaches, you would have to establish the unborn has the same rights as women. Even then, when it comes to the life of the mother, how do you establish who's life is worth more, seeing your claim is that the fetus has at least as much right to life as the mother. . . perhaps in your world, even more.

Alito's opinion was made strictly using the reasoning that abortion was not wrong. . . but it is a right that is not Constitutionally guaranteed.

Even if he shared you insane views, he would be stupid enough to include them in his opinion. Because they are nonsensical and have nothing to do with Constitutional rights or the law.

[Opinion Owner]

When did I make the claim of murder? What I said doesn't make sense to you because you started from a false pretense. And then you concluded with exactly what my point was... it doesn't matter whether or not abortion is deemed a crime. The 10th amendment says that if an issue isn't addressed in the constitution, it's up to the states to decide.

[RolandCuthbert]

Your position is nonsense. Your claim is that you can take the right of privacy and to life away from women, because of states rights.

If a state rules a fetus is more important than a woman's life, that is state sanctioned murder.

[Opinion Owner]

You disagree with the court's ruling. We get it. But you obviously know nothing about the constitution, constitutional law, legal construction, or the bill of rights.

You say my opinion makes no sense. That's expected from someone who only judges from their own opinion and not facts. The ruling makes 100% sense by every legal doctrine in the U. S. The Roe ruling was nonsense. You can't judge whether something is a crime or not by the right of privacy, and the constitution gives the federal government precisely 0 say-so over abortion. As a matter of fact, its a paradoxical situation where the if the federal gov considered it a crime, it would have absolute jurisdiction, but if not, it would have 0. They literally can deem it a crime, but also literally can't deem it not a crime.

So the decision lies with the states. And to argue it from a federal gov standpoint is dumb. You're barking up the wrong tree because the supreme court has admitted it (and the rest of the federal gov) has no juridiction in the matter.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

[RolandCuthbert]

No the ruling makes nonsense for several reasons.

It says a state can violate the right to privacy and to life as it sees fit.
It reasons that rights not specially mentioned in the Constitution cannot be enforced at the federal level.
And if that is the case which other rights can be revoked? We all know these decisions will be tailored to target specific groups.

The funny thing is if any such decision affected your right to privacy or claimed you could not gain access to a life saving procedure you would lose your mind. And you would want us to come to your rescue.

You aren’t the brightest bulb on the tree. This has nothing to do with committing a crime. You are so dull and uninformed you don’t realize many women have been investigated for having miscarriages. During one of the worst periods of their lives they have been investigated the crime of murder. In fact one woman was shot and charged with the murder of her own fetus as the court ruled she was irresponsible when it came to her actions leading up to the incident where a person ended up grabbing a gun and attempted to take her life

And no matter what dull comment you come up with, that is insane.

[Opinion Owner]

I support the right to abortion, numbnuts. But the constitution doesn't say jack about it, so its not in the federal government's jurisdiction.

This needs to be fought at the state level, not federal. And by crowing about the supreme court, the protestors are barking up the wrong tree. They need to be putting pressure on their state legislators and filing in state courts, or they're not gonna get anything done. The only way to put it in the feds' hands is to make it a constitutional amendment, which would be great, but we all know that's not gonna happen

[RolandCuthbert]

Stay anonymous dude. Because with the nonsense that escapes your mouth you would lose your job and your friends out of embarrassment.

No one claims the word abortion is in the constitution. But neither are the words fetus or unborn. Therefore they have no constitutional rights. No matter what your cowardly misogynistic backward trollish ass claims women have rights. A fetus does not.

Period.

[Opinion Owner]

You're just refusing to understand my point. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, I dunno. But the point is that if it's an issue that the Constitution doesn't specifically give the federal government authority over, then it falls to the states. And I'd rather see people protesting in the correct forums so they can get something done instead of harping at the SCOTUS.

If the majority of states can be convinced to let go of religious dogma and accept abortion as a sensible procedure, then it could be proposed and passed as a constitutional amendment that the government can pass no laws regulating reproductive rights and the issue would be solved for good.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, you don't understand your own point. The Constitution does not give states the right to violate a woman's constitutional privileges. In fact, it is quite specific that American citizens have these rights above and beyond any local jurisdiction.

That's why we are called a Constitutional Republic. Our rights do not come from majority rule. We are born or naturalized with them and they cannot be taken away.

[Opinion Owner]

You can't claim they're constitutional privileges if they're not in the constitution, first of all. Second, a privilege and a right aren't the same thing. And third, a republic is governed by representatives who are supposed to legislate the will of the people.

Each state is a republic in itself, and the federal government is a republic of states. This isn't a federal issue, so therefore we should be petitioning and protesting state legislatures where abortion will be outlawed.

That is 100% correct by the constitution, bill of rights, American jurisprudence, legal construction, state constitutions, and state laws. You can argue all you want. You can rant and rave about the federal government. You can berate people on the internet. But none of that will get a damn thing done or make a bit of difference if you don't hit your state legislators up to make a change and vote them out if they don't. Be heard in the proper forum, or your voice doesn't matter.

[RolandCuthbert]

You another lying troll. The right to privacy and to life are defined in the Constitution. And a state cannot take those rights away to give those rights to a fetus.

All citizens of the United States are either born or naturalized. A fetus is neither. It is right there in the Constitution, you illiterate twat.

Section 1 Rights Guaranteed

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

You cannot deny a woman her rights over your superstitious or religious view. This isn't Iran. We are not a misogynistic theocracy.

[Opinion Owner]

The right to privacy doesn't cover any act that's deemed to be criminal. If a state deems abortion a criminal act, you no longer have the right to privacy while doing it. The right to life is exactly what's in question, and why it's such a controversial issue. You already know that.

But you continue to beat this strawman. Good for you. Big difference you're making here, arguing against someone who fundamentally agrees with you. Keep chasing windmills, hero

[RolandCuthbert]

That's the exact point you twat. You are defining a criminal act for something that the Constitution does not even consider to be alive. No rights are conferred to a fetus. And to let a state arbitrarily set when a fetus becomes a person is nonsensical. Some states are even talking about giving rights to eggs before they are even fertilized.

That's why you can't let folks with insane stupid extremist views take rights away from other citizens.

Whether or not you can claim a fetus is alive before a heartbeat, at three months or six is definitely controversial.

But what is not, is the rights that women have. Because again, women are either born or naturalized citizens. You can't take their rights away claiming a fetus. . ."might" be alive.

And I see you keep skipping over the fact that women have died in situations where the state is conflicted over whether or not they are entitled to an abortion because of some health issue.

And you also refuse to address the state investigating women for miscarriages.

www.thecut.com/.../...arged-with-manslaughter.html

On Wednesday, 27-year-old Birmingham, Alabama resident Marshae Jones was indicted by a Jefferson County grand jury for manslaughter, AL. com reported. Her alleged crime? In 2018, Jones, who was five months pregnant at the time, was shot in the stomach, resulting in a miscarriage. Jones will reportedly be transferred to the Jefferson County Jail and held on a $50,000 bond.

[Opinion Owner]

You're giving that strawman one hell of a beating. Don't stop now. You're doing great.

[RolandCuthbert]

No wonder you are anonymous. You make stupid bullshit arguments. . . then claim someone created a strawman.

Women have rights defined in the Constitution. Nothing you can think up or say can contest that. And that's why this decision will be reversed by legislation or by expanding the court.

[Opinion Owner]

You keep saying I'm defining it as a criminal act. I don't, and never said I do. But you keep arguing against it even though I've stated that I'm for abortion rights.

That's the strawman.

I said determining whether something is a crime or not by examining your right to privacy while doing it is dumb.

[RolandCuthbert]

Your position gives the state the right to define it as a criminal act. That's your point. That a state can say it is a crime, then use that position to violate a woman's rights. And your claim is that women have no protection under the Constitution. A state can do whatever it wants to women, simply because they have the ability to have children.

You actually argue like a child. It is you who built the strawman. Obviously, no one can claim the right of privacy when murdering someone.

But that's the point. You keep pretending you aren't saying what you are saying. That a state can claim a crime has been committed. . . then proceed to investigate women for miscarriages, stillbirths, etc.

So get that stupid nonsense out of here.

Go and become a real boy, Pinocchio.

[Opinion Owner]

That's not what I said at all. If that's what you're getting from my statement that if it's not specifically stated in the constitution, it falls on the states and the people, then that's faulty logic on your part. Legally speaking, that's a constraint of the 10th amendment. Also legally speaking, the people have the right to direct the government of their state to legislate according to their will. Focusing attention on the federal government stepping in is doing a disservice because they've already disavowed themselves of the issue.

It CAN be made a federal law if the majority of states concur, which should be the main focus for activists. As it stands, 26 states look like they're gonna ban it. Activists need to take the ten states most likely to be convinced otherwise and get to work there. The common viewpoint is to attack the big targets: the federal gov, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. But we should be shooting for the majority, and that means hitting several smaller targets and ignoring the places where no good can be done.

[RolandCuthbert]

"That's not what I said at all. If that's what you're getting from my statement that if it's not specifically stated in the constitution, it falls on the states and the people, then that's faulty logic on your part. "Legally speaking, that's a constraint of the 10th amendment. Also legally speaking, the people have the right to direct the government of their state to legislate according to their will. Focusing attention on the federal government stepping in is doing a disservice because they've already disavowed themselves of the issue."

That is what your statement says. You are telling me that a State can do whatever it wants. If a governor and a state legislature decide that you have no rights, you can't point to the Constitution and say. . . sorry. . . no matter what you guys think my right to privacy, to life and to the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed.

It like you never had to take the test on the Constitution. The Constitution outlines the rights we have above and beyond state law. And one of the principle reasons for having a Federal government is that while jurisdictions can pass regional specific laws. . . the Constitution guarantees they can never take certain rights away. The Federal government enforces the Constitution.

Your point is that giving to these decisions back to the state means it can decide what is privacy, how valuable a woman's life is, etc.

That is not Constitutional and again, that's why the fight is on to enact Federal legislation and beyond that expanding the court.

[Opinion Owner]

"You are telling me that a State can do whatever it wants."

No. I'm saying that a state is legally obligated to legislate according to the will of the people. So activism in those states can lead to a majority of pro-abortion states, which can lead to a successful SCOTUS case, which can lead to federal legislation and/or a constitutional amendment solidifying abortion as a fundamental right.

[RolandCuthbert]

You don't seem to know why the Constitution is written the way that it is. You say "will of the people", which of course is an exaggeration because if they were concerned about the will of the people they would simply create a referendum.

They haven't and they won't.

But if you took any course on Constitutional law, you would know that James Madison was insistent on this approach because of what he termed, "the Tyranny of the Majority". It simply is not enough to have majority rule. I said this several times and you simply have no ability to absorb it.

One of the reasons why we are a Constitutional Republic is because the Founding Fathers realized the majority can be wrong.

There are rights that States cannot take away. That's been my position from the first post. You have changed yours several times already.

[Opinion Owner]

So your proposed solution is to get the federal government to pass a law.

The Dem party has had the legal precedent for decades, and had several chances to get it done. And now you think they can get it done without the legal precedent.

Fight the good fight, my friend. Put your constitutional law degree to its best use and show us all how it's done

[RolandCuthbert]

That's not the proposed solution. That's the stop-gap. Ultimately, expanding the court is the way we have to go. Because the current are liable to take more rights away then we will have to listen to you and folks who defend this as being the right of a State and will of the people. You would think we would have learned our lesson from the bloodiest war in history. But we just haven't.

I guess this is what is behind the push to stop teaching history. Because any course teaching about the Civil War and the events that lead up to it would make people ponder this question of States' rights vs the Constitution.

As for fighting the good fight, what's hilarious about you is your inability to understand this fight is about your rights too. Believe it or not, you have rights that your state should not take away. Even if the state legislature/governor made a different choice for you.

I am still laughing about "will of the people" and this is the "dems" fault. Dude, I was a Republican for over two decades. And it was a Republican hit job. The garbage I peddled for years about the Republicans not overturning Roe v Wade was simply a lie. And you don't even assign the appropriate blame.

[Opinion Owner]

Same failed argument over and over. You can't claim something as a fundamental or constitutional right if it isn't in the constitution or other organic U. S. document.

"They're gonna take your rights away, too!" Stop trying to use fear. An appeal to emotion is a weak tactic only trotted out when you know reason isn't on your side.

And the attempt to project partisanship onto me is equally pathetic. The only thing I've said about democrats is that they didn't get it codified into law when they had a chance, even though they knew full well the republicans were aiming to reverse the decision. Neither party gives a damn. If I point my finger, it's at all of them, not one side or the other. So you can save your "you didn't assign blame properly" garbage, and your "my team vs their team", "I used to be on that team" shit for someone who wants to argue party politics like a damn child.

You claim to have superior knowledge of constitutional law, so make your legal argument as to how you're going to get a federal law passed when the SCOTUS just ruled that abortion isn't within the federal government's jurisdiction.

[Whatever2929292]

A lot of people fall somewhere in the middle. Most things aren't black and white. I am pro choice other then rare medical situations.

Some people have other reasons when they think abortion should happen. Some don't think up until birth but are alright in earlier trimesters. The list goes on.

[RolandCuthbert]

It isn't a somewhere in the middle situation. Either women have rights or they do not. It is hilarious to here folks talk about life of the mother. . . as though someone outside of the State will decide when a woman's life is in danger. They sure as hell won't listen to the woman or her doctor.

[USLegionary]

I'm against abortion myself being Christian but my opinion on the matter being pro democracy is that there should be a nation wide referendum to decide that matter for the next 30 years, if its voted to legalise it then its on the conscience and souls of the women and doctors who terminate these children.

[RolandCuthbert]

A referendum wouldn't be a bad idea. But we know that a lot of politicians are not going to go for it.

And we know why.

[USLegionary]

Politicians can't have we the people deciding.

[jjj101010]

I’ve heard people say it’s not the governments job to pay for your life choices, does this include if I choose not to secure my property, it’s not the government’s job to recover my lost property or track down those responsible. The security of your property is far less significant than whether you choose to secure your genitalia prior to sex. Therefore far less of the governments responsibility right? If someone steals my TV then it may take a couple of months to pay for a new one where as a baby will cost you for 18+ years.

Is socialised policing a leftist approach. Would it be better if when I call, the police i tell them the issue, they invoice me for the initial consultation and then give me a quote for investigating the crime? If you support the idea of the government paying for your policing does that make you a commie? What about socialised education? Sounds like another lefty idea right?

[RolandCuthbert]

This post has nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling or the opinions cited. In fact, your emotional/politicized argument is actually nonsensical. Leftist? Government responsibility?

It is like someone beat you with an idiot stick.

[Anonymous]

What you don't seem to be getting is that the supreme court is only meant to rule based on what is in the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about a right to an abortion, and based on what is in the constitution regarding privacy it is not reasonable to conclude that allows termination a pregnancy. It is disingenuous to read the constitution and think it green lights abortion wholesale. By Roe being overturned, it does not ban abortion. This just pushes the policy back to the states.

[Hogoblin_of_Venice]

Very well said.

I would also like to point out that the supreme court cannot pick up matters willy nilly. A case has to come before them. In Mississippi a women's group Sued Because they didn't like Mississippi's abortion restrictions, so it was that case that came before the supreme court.

These activist Bringing this case up Allowed a more conservative constitutionalist court To review the subject of abortion and the struck down Roe v wade.

Before this abortion was legal in all 50 states. Maybe someone on the pro abortion side Should have said hey We have 90% of what we want let's not try to get the last 10%.

[RolandCuthbert]

What you don't seem to understand is that is exactly what I describe in my post. There are lots of rights that have no basis in the Constitution. Like interracial marriage.

And it is extremely disingenuous to read my post and not understand that I fully address what the Alito's ruling says.

[RolandCuthbert]

@Hogoblin_of_Venice Dude, I don't think you are even sure about what you agreeing to.

[Opinion Owner]

No, I understand what you are saying but what you are describing isn't the point of the supreme court. They rule on whether things are constitutional. That's their purpose, not to make laws, just to interpret the constitution. The right to privacy thing that you are talking about, there is nothing in the constitution that explains a right to privacy in such a way that says there is a constitutional right to an abortion. That's the start and end of it.

I understand you saying all that stuff about a pregnant woman's life being threatened and I have not commented on that. Personally I feel that if there is some medical threat to the mothers life then of course abortion should be a choice that woman has, but just because I believe this doesn't mean it's the supreme courts job to make up rights that aren't described in the constitution. Other crimes like murder for instance (I mean murder of someone already born here) laws are set at the state level and most offenses are not federal. That doesn't mean that the supreme court is saying murder is fine.

[Hogoblin_of_Venice]

You said That this ruling was about medical privacy. I'm guessingyou're talking about the original roe V. wade decision. Yes In the 1973 court case they expanded the 14th amendment To cover privacy between a doctor and patient regarding abortion.

All this latest ruling is saying is the 1973 decision found a right of abortion that did not exist in constitutional law. So in this latest decision all dthey did Was wash their hands of it. Basically saying we have no say over this, this is a state matter. Abortions are not legal or illegalat a federal level.

As for abortion being a right in the constitution There is no mention and by the mid 1,800s 36 states have laws expressly forbidding it. I can absolutely promise you that the original writers of the constitution did not Consider abortion to be a right. They were following English common law for the most part that is the root of all our laws and abortions were considered murder. Killing a pregnant woman was considered 2 murders. And pregnant Convicted of a capital crime could only be executed after she had given birth.10 days after I think but don't quote me on that bit.

There was no legal precident to find a right of abortion. And just because it's private between you and your doctor does not mean you can commit a crime. You and your doctor cannot do cocaine in privacy and have it not be illegal.

But the latest ruling does not make abortion illegal either. States do that. Or dont,,, depends on the state you're living in.

What you are saying apparently is the supreme court should be used to invent rights that do not exist in the constitution? Is that correct?

Things of that nature are meant to go through the house and the senateCongress makes laws. And congress can amend The constitution. It has done so before.

[RolandCuthbert]

@po1989 Again, you are simply telling me what I have already stated. If you have something new to add, please do so. I mean my whole point is that GaG members seem to only be able to argue choice vs life. And not the actual substance of the Roe v Wade ruling.

Then you come along and restate exactly what I say in my post and pretend it is something new.

Additionally, you pretend I claim the Constitution says something that it does not. I simply outlined what the original decision claimed. The decision said that because abortion is a procedure that could be used to save the life of a mother or is a viable option for women who had been raped, it should be a decision that is off limits to government intervention. I never said anything about the Constitution.

Because again, there are lots of rights we have that are not Constitutional.

[RolandCuthbert]

@hogoblin_of_veniceWell again, my point is that GaG faithful argue choice vs life. Just like that was something the Supreme Court ruled on or cares about. When that was never apart of the original Roe V Wade ruling or challenges to it.

Then you precede to tell me what I have already posted about what the Supreme Court ruled. Alito's opinion states that abortion is not a right granted by the Constitution. And just like I told your friend, this means that any right not granted by the Constitution can be taken away.

Now if you want to argue about the decision. Of course I disagree with it. Because it is silly to claim that the only rights we can have are the ones defined in the Constitution. The Constitution has huge gaps in it and it is old. It doesn't specificallly talk about race or interracial marriage. There is nothing it is about gay, lesbians or trans. And to say that every single right must be granted through constitutional amendment isn't a rational position.

[Opinion Owner]

Okay so we are back at square one. The point of the supreme court is only determining what is constitutional. You say you understand this, but what you wrote below demonstrates you don't, if you think Rowe was a proper ruling (which is seems like you do). And you say there are lots of rights we have that are not constitutional, further showing that you are failing to understand that these are outside the preview of the supreme court.

"The decision said that because abortion is a procedure that could be used to save the life of a mother or is a viable option for women who had been raped, it should be a decision that is off limits to government intervention. I never said anything about the Constitution.

Because again, there are lots of rights we have that are not Constitutional."

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, you are not reading my post. You are taking your pre-established narrative and trying shove it into this conversation.

Again, my point was the substitution having in the forum. The narrative of choice/life versus what the actual rulings say.

You never wanted to address that point. You wanted to debate your assumption on what I feel about the ruling. Rather than ask. . . or simply say you wanted to debate that, you pretended to understand my statements then pivoted to the discussion you wanted to have.

So I just wanted to state how silly this was first.

As for my opinion, of course the ruling is stupid. Because we already know states will use abortion laws to violate the fundamental rights of women.

Such as their right to live. . . and their right to privacy.

Those are constitutional by the way.

WTF?

[Opinion Owner]

Since you are obsessed with the part of your rant about the narrative of choice/life versus what the actual rulings say - yeah that's obvious and you're not wrong about that. I'm not contesting that people are talking about choice/life more than Rowe/"right to privacy".

My point is that even though you say you understand the difference, your thoughts on the case indicate that you only partially understand it. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. The supreme court was wrong to make one up in the Rowe case, there's nothing described in the constitution that justifies abortion. Nothing else matters here other than what's constitutional. That's the point of the supreme court. It's okay if you don't think it should be that way, but that's how it works.

[RolandCuthbert]

You still are pretending I said there is a Constitutional right to abortion.

So you are not a rational human being.

There is a Constitutional right to life. And also one to privacy.

Address that.

[Opinion Owner]

Look, you can deny it all day long but are in effect arguing there is a constitutional right to abortion if you are saying that the right to privacy protects abortion (as they decided in Rowe). That's laughable that you call me irrational after missing such an obvious point. The truth is the right to privacy as stated in the constitution does NOT state anything that makes abortion constitutionally protected.

You said:

"There is a Constitutional right to life. And also one to privacy.

Address that."

Right to privacy as outlined in the constitution doesn't protect abortion. Rowe was a bad decision, even RGB who was a fierce defender of abortion knew that.
Right to life was not the basis of the Rowe decision. I agree personally that the mother has a right to life, and if her life is threatened by a pregnancy that she should have the right to choose. You would need to consider that a right to life might apply to the unborn baby as well, so in cases that did not involve such a medical emergency abortions would be banned wholesale. That's a different argument altogether and not worth going into as it's not about the overturning of Rowe.

[RolandCuthbert]

Well, I am going to say in effect you are supporting the state sanction murder of a woman who's only crime is having a difficult pregnancy. I am going to say you are supporting a state violating a woman's privacy to ensure that she has not had an abortion when she has a miscarriage or leaves her state, goes to a state where abortion is legal, then returns.

And this is all because you do not possess the ability to make your argument on actual legal grounds.

I am not sure why you are talking about your personal beliefs about life of the mother. I am asking about the legal basis for allowing a state to do what it wants. So with that considered;

CAN A SUPREME COURT DECISION EVEN CONSIDER THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER WHILE RULING THIS IS A STATE ISSUE?

Think about this using logic and rational thinking for one second.

[Opinion Owner]

Look, I said nothing about murder and the ruling doesn't have to do with my personal beliefs or yours. I've already explained to you why the supreme court ruled how it did, but it seems like it goes over your head or something.

[RolandCuthbert]

No my argument went over your head.

You are pretending to know the law and the Constitution. And you are claiming the Constitution does not mention abortion. It also does not mention fetuses, eggs, sperm, or conception. It grants personhood to a person.

So sending this back to the states is a clear violation of a woman's constitutional rights. Because it gives the state the right to elevate the life of the fetus over a woman's life. And your preference that you would want a state to consider the life of the mother, is one of the craziest things I have seen posted on this subject. I think you just heard it so much in the old videos about abortion, you thought it made sense. Every single politician that said that nonsense was simply ignorant of the law.

And by virtue of taking the choice from a woman as to whether she is willing to risk the pregnancy, terminate it, seek a second, third, or fourth opinion on the matter, is a clear violation of her right to life and to privacy.

The constitution recognizes no such rights for a fetus.

[Opinion Owner]

Nothing you said went over my head. It's all pretty elementary stuff, although sometimes confusing because it's not alway coherent or written clearly.

I don't know how you can admit that the constitution says nothing of abortion and then in the next breath say that the constitution not protecting abortion is a clear violation of a woman's constitutional rights. That's an absolute contradiction and any somewhat logical person could see that.

"And your preference that you would want a state to consider the life of the mother, is one of the craziest things I have seen posted on this subject"

These weren't actually my words, and that sentence isn't clear. If you are saying that I prefer it to be left up to states rather than Rowe forced upon all states then yes I do... But once again, my preference and your preference aren't important. The supreme court does not make policy, it determines what is constitutional.

"The constitution recognizes no such rights for a fetus."

There's a stronger argument that constitutional rights would extend to an unborn person than than there is about constitutionally protected abortion. You could argue that neither exist, or just the former while the latter was an obviously poor interpretation.

Look, I'm not a supreme court justice or anything so don't blame me if you don't like the ruling. I'm just trying to explain to you why it was ruled the way that it was, if you disagree with it it's not my fault and frankly I feel no need to explain anything more than I have at this point. You obviously have strong opinions on the subject, good luck.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are telling me what is elementary, when your entire point is the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution. A point so comically simplistic it is hilarious. I told you for three days. A lot of words are not in the Constitution. A lot of rights are not defined in the Constitution. You never took the hint. You simply repeated this mantra that you heard in Alito's opinion. And I simply asked you to think logically and to consider the law.

And you refused. To say nothing that you ambushed me because you never wanted to discuss my point. You wanted to discuss my view on the decision.

My position is not based upon emotion like yours. I am here telling you that the Constitution recognizes personhood. And has defined that women possess it. And by possessing it, they have the rights defined in the Constitution.

Now you can get mad, sad, or whatever. Your emotions do not change fact. A state cannot violate a person's consitutional right. That is a mandate every single state must observe.

A state that investigates a woman for murder of something not considered a person is violating that woman's Constitutional rights. A state that elevates the well-being of something not considered a person over the life of a woman has violated that woman's Constitutional rights. And the Supreme Court has sworn to uphold the rights of every person. Because it is only a person that can possess rights. The terms fetus and unborn are not in the Constitution. But a woman's right to privacy and to life are definitely in the Constitution. There is no debating that fact.

So you can run along at this point. It isn't like you were being genuine in this discussion. You just bit off way more than you can chew.

[Opinion Owner]

You are projecting big time, buddy. I'm the one bringing emotion into it? No. Bit off more than I can chew? Just lol.

You keep coming back to this idea that women's constitutional rights are being infringed upon. It's like talking to a brick wall trying to explain there is no constitutional right to an abortion and therefore nothing is being infringed. Like I said, I can't bother to explain this again. I guess your mind isn't capable of grasping that a right to privacy as described in the constitution doesn't protect a right to have an abortion.

[RolandCuthbert]

@po1989 Yes, you are being emotional and disingenuous, because you refuse to acknowledge that no one is claiming that the word abortion is in the Constitution. You cannot find a single post from me claiming that nonsense.

My point is about the Constitution and only the Constitution. And I told you this from the first post when you made your stupid silly claim.

A lot of words are not in the Constitution. A lot or rights are not defined in the Constitution.

So since we can only work with the words that are in the Constitution, we must acknowledge that you are right. "Abortion" is not in the document, but neither are the words fetus or unborn.

So with that established we have undeniable evidence that women's rights are infringed upon. Because state abortion laws allow them to be investigated for the crime of murder. . for something that is not even considered to be a person. It allows the state to elevate a fetus. . . above and beyond the life of the mother.

You pretend this has not been posted eight different times to you.

But your emotional irrational responses are not worthy of acknowledge.

They are just silly stupid nonsense.

[Opinion Owner]

"So with that established we have undeniable evidence that women's rights are infringed upon."

I wonder if your vertical leap is as impressive as your leaps when trying to use logic.

"Because state abortion laws allow them to be investigated for the crime of murder. . for something that is not even considered to be a person. It allows the state to elevate a fetus. . . above and beyond the life of the mother."

Okay - the constitution doesn't say anything specifically about the unborn one way or another... So in your view, everyone is just supposed to accept your premise that an unborn baby is not to be considered a person? You really can't see how that is your opinion and not a fact? Seriously? You call me emotional (without any real evidence) but at least I can see the difference between something that is opinion and something that is fact.

[RolandCuthbert]

You just stated the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution and you claim everyone must accept your view despite a woman's Constitutional rights being violated.

Even as. . .

1. The Constitution clearly confers no rights to something called a fetus or something referred to as "the unborn".

2. Then what's worse is. . . Alito's ruling says nothing about something called a fetus or something referred to as "the unborn". He simply says what you have repeated, that the word "abortion" is not in the constitution. A fact no one disputes. But we have to pretend for the sake of your emotional state, that somewhere in the multiverse, some court has mentioned these words in a ruling on this subject. Because clearly no one talks about fetus or the unborn in any of these rulings. Because the court is not a medical body. It is a legal one.

3. My personal beliefs as to when/if a fetus is a person is not up for debate. Cease with this emotional prattle. We are talking about the law. And your legal argument is what this discussion is about. If you want to whine about the life of the child and all that jazz, kindly stop pretending you care about legal definitions. If you want to cry over some abortion photos then I will cry with you. If you want to talk about the law, then blow your nose and start to use rational thinking.

[Opinion Owner]

"You just stated the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution"
- Fact

"And you claim everyone must accept your view"
- Not true at all, unless you are still talking about the part about abortion not being in the constitution. As an aside, your view does mean you push abortion on every state (even those that don't want it).

"Despite a woman's Constitutional rights being violated."
- What right? The right to privacy? That's not being violated.

"1..."
- The constitution also does not exclude unborn persons. This is where opinion seeps in. You say a fetus has no rights, but the constitution doesn't actually say that, rather it is your opinion. I think an unborn baby has rights - but I recognize that is also just an opinion. You seem to take your opinion as fact. I recognize room for disagreement here.

"2..."
- My emotional state is fine. The only reason I mentioned about the unborn because you said - without evidence - that a fetus is definitively not a person.

"3. .."
- Again, you brought up the fetus not being a person thing and treated it as if your opinion was definitive. And you are still treating it as definitive, even after that's pointed out to you. I can tell you are worked up reading my responses because you bring up the word "emotional" so much. Classic projection.

[RolandCuthbert]

1. Of course it is true. You have a built-in assumption about when a fetus can be considered alive or to be a person. And you claim everyone must adopt your views, even as those views are not stated in the Constitution. A state can do everything it feels to discourage abortion. I don't care about that. They can run ads. They can provide all kinds of support. They can even pay women not to have an abortion. But they cannot deny access to it. . . or set rules that invade a woman's privacy or jeopardize her life. You can twist and turn. . . but the law is the law.

2. Of course her right to privacy is violated. A state will investigate a woman for the murder of something the Constitution does not even consider a person. It would be like claiming she killed a tumor in her body therefore she can be arrested, tried and sentenced.

3. I didn't say without evidence. You are just being emotional, silly, and nonsensical. What does the Constitution say about fetuses?

4. My opinion does not matter. What matters is what does the Constitution say about fetuses? You want to selectively apply your critera. If the Constitution does not include the term fetus, then make the silly claim that it does or that it cares about your beliefs on what a fetus is or is not. These are just emotional nonsensical outbursts that would be ignored in a court proceeding. Because again, the court is not a medical body. It is a legal one.

[Opinion Owner]

"You have a built-in assumption about when a fetus can be considered alive or to be a person. And you claim everyone must adopt your views, even as those views are not stated in the Constitution."

That bit that I quoted doesn't describe me. But it does describe you to a tee. No, I don't claim everyone must adopt my view. In fact, I am the only one of the two of us who concedes that the point is debatable. You are the one who claims everyone must adopt your view that the fetus is not constitutionally protected (even though that is not stated in the constitution). You see the difference?

To be honest with you I stopped reading your post after this point because that is such an off the wall, bonkers premise that I know you are either being too emotional to use reason here or you are not intelligent enough. I think it's the former rather than the latter because you seem somewhat informed, but it could be either one.

I am a libertarian, you are an authoritarian... I know we are not going to agree on much politically. But you trying to say I am the one forcing my views on others rather than yourself is a bit too on the nose. I'm wondering if you're just an elaborate troll account now.

[RolandCuthbert]

Of course this describes you. And you do want to enforce your interpretation of the Constitution onto other folks, even as you know it does not support any language about a fetus being a person. In fact, the very words say, "all persons born or naturalized". . . a fetus is neither a born nor is it naturalized citizen. But we know women are either born or naturalized citizens.

This is not some subjective view. This is objective reality, which you reject because of your unstable emotional state. I merely point to what the Constitution says.

As for my personal beliefs, they are more complex. But the legal argument is clear and it is simple.

I know you have stopped reading my posts. You are just skimming because your feelings are hurt. The law doesn't care about your hurt feelings. The Constitution does not support your view that a fetus is a person.

[Opinion Owner]

Are you really so ignorant to believe when they said about citizens being born or naturalized, they were trying to draw a distinction between born vs unborn rather than just clarifying rights applied to all citizens regardless of their origin?

Let me break this down simply for you:

My view - does not force others to accept my belief that an unborn baby has rights. I acknowledge that the constitution neither says an unborn person has a constitutional right nor does it state that they do not. And while I personally believe that the unborn should have the same rights and that what has been going on in this country is in many cases evil (excluding medical emergencies and rape), I am also logical and honest enough to set that aside and say legally I know this subject is debatable.

Your view - does demand that everyone agrees unborn babies are not constitutionally protected and that the constitution does protect abortion. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing the states can't have their own laws regulating abortion without violating women's constitutional rights.

Look in the mirror and be honest with yourself. Just admit you're the one who is authoritarian. You don't have to tackle the question of whether your views are right or wrong. Just start by admitting that you demand others need to share your view, regardless of if it's right or wrong.

[RolandCuthbert]

Exactly! They draw the distinction that a person has to be birthed or naturalized. You can't just make the silly claim that the Constitution states that a fetus is a person at some point in a pregnancy. That isn't even a rational view. The Constitution isn't some medical journal. It is a legal document detailing our rights and which ones are guaranteed from government intervention. This is the same argument as "abortion" is not written in the Constitution. . . but far more devastating. Because it is specific about who/what gets rights and who/what does not.

You do want to enforce your weird nonsensical view that the Constitution is conferring rights to a fetus. Even as it doesn't explicitly say anything fetuses or the unborn. It doesn't even attempt to define at what stage during sex, pregnancy, etc. these subjects become persons. In fact, the amazing thing is, you haven't even decided when that supposed to be. You claim it can be arbitarily determined by the state. That isn't Constitutional or lawful. It is just stupid nonsense.

Because here is the issue. If a fetus is a person and you claim the Constitution supports this view, then abortion is murder. It isn't something a state can determine. It isn't subjective or something up for debate. It is a right to life given to the fetus by the Constitution and your weird nonsensical view cannot take it away. That's how silly your reasoning is.

My view is what the Constitution says. It gives no rights to the unborn. And anything else you say on the subject is a lie. Proven by the fact, that you disingenuously argue the Constitution confers the right to life to a fetus. . . but a state can take it away.

So just look in the mirror. . . and admit you are just an irrational human being, trying to force your nonsensical views on the rest of us.

[Opinion Owner]

"You can't just make the silly claim that the Constitution states that a fetus is a person at some point in a pregnancy.”

I never said that lol. What reading disability do you have?

"You do want to enforce your weird nonsensical view that the Constitution is conferring rights to a fetus.”

No I don’t, and again can you even read? I said this was debatable - you want to enforce your view not me.

"In fact, the amazing thing is, you haven't even decided when that supposed to be. You claim it can be arbitarily determined by the state.”

I didn’t say that either you absolute lunatic.

"So just look in the mirror. . . and admit you are just an irrational human being, trying to force your nonsensical views on the rest of us."

You’re a maniac. You do nothing but strawman me throughout your whole response. I get that you don't expect to get spanked on a silly website like GAG but at least get your facts about what I actually said straight.

[RolandCuthbert]

So now you just resort to straight up lying. You said the constitution does not exclude unborn persons. Those are your words. Then later you claim it is where opinion "seeps" in. This is this nonsensical crap I am talking about. The Constitution does not deal in opinions. It states which rights are guaranteed to citizens. You claim that "abortion" did not appear in the Constitution.

And you used that reasoning to overrule what we know to be true. That women have the right to privacy and to life and those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.

No, this is not debatable. Because if it is, the Constitution is a useless document. It cannot be used to definitively claim anything. You grant the state the power to take away rights, simply because enforcing those rights fully. . . is somehow "forcing" a state to do something it does not wish to do.
The Constitution is not a document to be bartered with. If a State does not want to honor its obligations, let it petition to leave the Union. Because the highest purpose of the Federal government is to ensure the rights of citizens. And to let a state take away those rights is a betrayal of the Constitution.

You are telling me I misquoted you?

Dude, you claimed for three days that I said "abortion" was a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Get your nonsensical strawman crap out of here. You built one and then ignored my posts for three days running.

Nothing can change the fact, that you claim the state has the power to decide, life and liberty for the both the mother and the unborn. Which is hilarious. Because you claim the state can kill someone. . . over an opinion.

I am saying it can't. It must honor the rights of the mother, because the Constitution explicitly and unambiguously defines her as a citizen.

You cannot claim the same about a fetus. And you can't use some "opinion" to take away rights guaranteed to a person we know has them.

[Opinion Owner]

"You said the constitution does not exclude unborn persons."

It does not. Find the portion where it explicitly says unborn persons have no rights.

"Then later you claim it is where opinion "seeps" in. This is this nonsensical crap I am talking about. The Constitution does not deal in opinions. It states which rights are guaranteed to citizens."

The constitution does not state whether unborn persons have rights or not. So yeah your conclusion that they don't is not an opinion. It's not a fact that they don't like you keep saying. by the way - abortion is not not one of the rights it guaranteed and right to privacy - for the zillionth time - doesn't protect abortion either.

Keep lying about what I said, and keep enjoying getting spanked.

[RolandCuthbert]

Nonsense. Your reasoning is that since the Constitution does not explicitly claim that fetuses do not have rights, that means a fetus has the same rights as a woman, even as the Constitution explicitly and unambiguously states what rights a woman has.

Again, this is the an example of the hilariously ridiculous disingenuous nonsense you engage in.

You don't even believe in this crap, but you proceed to convince me.

The Constitution didn't exclude aardvarks from personhood either. But guess what, we do not recognize them as persons.

But Constitution explicitly lays out the rights for women. It doesn't for fetuses. And even if you claim that is up to opinion, no one should be taking you raggedy opinion over what we know to be the rights that women have.

End of story.

You are nothing but lies. You have changed your argument three times because you are disingenous. Your emotions drive your argument. That's why you went from falsely claiming I said abortion was in the Constitution, to the pretending that I want to force states to support abortion, to claiming that somehow the Constitution supports personhood for fetuses, to finally claiming that it leaves it open as an opinion. . . and that opinion alone can be used to deny a woman the rights we know she has been guaranteed.

It is nothing but insane nonsensical fecal matter.

[chico800]

I know that this is a couple of days old, but you're tying yourself into some real knots here. If our rights don't come from the Constitution, then according to your argument they must come from the Supreme Court. So if five SC justices rule that we have a right to something, then we do. But if they rule that we DON'T have a right to something, then we don't. You're just going to have to accept the decision either way it goes. If you accept that SCOTUS can create rights, then you also must accept that they can choose to not create rights.

[RolandCuthbert]

@chico800 Why do I have to accept that? Did the weirdos who claim the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution accept that a woman has guaranteed Constitutional rights? That was the law for 50 years? Of course they did not.

They lied, cheated, gerrymandered, manipulated and tricked their way to enacting an actual Supreme Court decision that actually took rights away from a specific group of American citizens.

So I don't accept it. And I will work with others for as long as it takes to change it back. And beyond that, I will work to change the Constitution so that it explicitly states what rights cannot be taken away from a citizen. Even as I know, that because certain people are irrational, they will seek to undermine even the most plain and explicit language we can dream up.

[chico800]

I already told you why. Where do rights come from? According to you it isn't from the Constitution, it's from the Supreme Court. So whatever those five unelected Justices say, you have to accept it, then. Or I guess you only accept it when they agree with you?

[RolandCuthbert]

@chico800 Yeah, you just refuse to listen. If the Supreme Court ruled that Roe V Wade was law 50 years ago, why didn't the freaks who claim the word "abortion" isn't in the Constitution accept what the Supreme Court said?

Your statement is nonsensical. Because it pretends there is nothing I can do. That's beyond silly. I can work with others to manipulate the system to change the law back.

But unlike you, I won't lie and claim the folks who disagree have to give up. I will do what I can to beat them using the rules of our political system.

[Opinion Owner]

"Nonsense. Your reasoning is that since the Constitution does not explicitly claim that fetuses do not have rights, that means a fetus has the same rights as a woman"

Your reading comprehension sucks. What I said wasn't that it definitely means the unborn has the same rights/protections, what I said was that YOUR assertion that the unborn do not is completely loaded and requires everyone to accept your particular view. You're an authoritarian and you can't stop twisting what I say to be the strawman you want me to be.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are here wordsmithing away a woman's Constitutional rights. You can play with semantics all you wish. No matter what you post, a woman has these rights.

"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."

That is the law. There is no explicit provision for a fetus. That is not an opinion or subjective reality. And if you wish to even approach that, consider this, you might be able to make an argument that a fetus has rights. But we both know that in the original Roe V Wade decision, the court ruled a fetus was not a person.

We have had no such debate about women. Yet you would allow a state to violate her rights because of your beliefs.

My contention has never changed like yours. A woman has all the rights of a citizen, that is written our explicitly and unambiguously. To claim it confers the same rights to a fetus isn't even a rational argument.

An authoritarian puts the power of the state over the rights of a citizen. That is your deal. Not mine.

[Opinion Owner]

"... That is the law."
Nothing there necessitates legal abortion. You can try to wordsmith your way into but it's not there.

"But we both know that in the original Roe V Wade decision, the court ruled a fetus was not a person."
Roe has been overturned because it was bad law.

"An authoritarian puts the power of the state over the rights of a citizen. That is your deal. Not mine."
An authoritarian puts the power of the federal government over the power of the states in ways where it does not belong to cram their view down everyone's throats. Your deal, totally.

[RolandCuthbert]

Again, the Constitution mentions nothing about abortions. That is your point. So stick to it. Stop twisting words and doing the shuck and jive.

The Constitution confers rights to a woman. Not a fetus. And it explicitly says no state shall infringe upon that woman's Constitutional rights. That is it and that is all.

What you think about abortion, your fears, your superstitions or your religious beliefs are not at issue.

Women are citizens. They are not the Federal government despite your insane ridiculous lies. They have rights that you cannot take away. Period. We recognize a person's freedoms and rights above and beyond the power of the "State". And that word "State" means the Federal government also.

[Opinion Owner]

"Again, the Constitution mentions nothing about abortions."
Fact.

"That is your point. So stick to it. Stop twisting words and doing the shuck and jive."
Just cause you're too dumb to follow nuance doesn't mean I can't have multiple points of contention with the verbal diarrhea you call arguments.

"The Constitution confers rights to a woman."
Yes it does however abortion is not one of those rights.

"Not a fetus."
This is your opinion. Not a fact.

"Women are citizens."
What? No way are you serious? How did I not realize that before. Thank you for enlightening me with your genius.

[chico800]

Well you have to accept it for now, tough guy. The way that everyone has to accept court decisions that they don't like. This one is hardly bad, SCOTUS has flung around some real bullshit in their history. Like Roe v. Wade, for example.

[RolandCuthbert]

You don't have nuance. You lie. Period. The Federal government and women are interchangable terms? The Federal government won't be investigated for a miscarriage. The Federal government won't have its medical history/records investigated. It won't have its private discussions with its doctor scrutinized. And above all, it won't have to petition a state for a procedure because its life is in danger.

But women will.

And you will allow a state to treat women as second class citizens because of your superstitious beliefs.

You lie every post, every time you say abortion isn't a right. Because that argument was never made. And you create this strawman of abortion rights that does not exist. Women have a right to life and to privacy. No state can take that away.

[Opinion Owner]

"You lie. Period."
I've been entirely honest the whole time while you've repeatedly lied.

"The Federal government and women are interchangable terms?"
What the hell are you imagining I said about the federal government, you maniac?

"You lie every post, every time you say abortion isn't a right. Because that argument was never made."
Dude - YOU are lying. You've said repeatedly that a state can't restrict abortion because it would violate a woman's constitutional rights. You are an absolute mess.

"Women have a right to life and to privacy. No state can take that away."
Unbelievable. You cannot even finish a paragraph without proving my point. You ARE making the point that abortion is a right here, even right after you said you never made that point.

[RolandCuthbert]

You were honest when you said the Federal Government and American women are interchangable terms? Was it honest to say abortion is not in the Constitution, then make the claim that I said it was, even as I have painstakingly explained which rights of women were being violated? Was it honest to claim that an opinion about a fetus right to life eclipses the rights spelled out explicitly in the Constitution for women?

Tell those lies to the folks who share your echo chamber.

Look at what you are saying. . . this is how messed up you are. First;

"You've said repeatedly that a state can't restrict abortion because it would violate a woman's constitutional rights."

Then earlier;

"Yes it does however abortion is not one of those rights."

And you swing back and forth like a pendulum. You swing back to the lie I am arguing abortion rights when you think it gives you some advantage.

The fact is I have never deviated from my position. The Constitution explicitly and unambiguously grants women the right to privacy and to life.

Everything else you have said about my position is a lie.

So it is up to you to explain why a state can violate a woman's rights.

Good luck.

Good luck.

[Opinion Owner]

"You were honest when you said the Federal Government and American women are interchangable terms?"
-I never said this lmao. You must be having hallucinations.

"Was it honest to say abortion is not in the Constitution"
-Yes

"then make the claim that I said it was, even as I have painstakingly explained which rights of women were being violated?"
-So you are agreeing with me that you are claiming that banning abortion is a violation of women's constitutional rights... which effectively makes protecting it a constitutional right. And then you're upset when I point out abortion is not a constitutional right. Got it.

"Was it honest to claim that an opinion about a fetus right to life eclipses the rights spelled out explicitly in the Constitution for women?"
-Opinions are not dishonest they are opinions. And I never said the unborn have more rights than their mothers lmao you're strawmanning me again.

"Look at what you are saying. . . this is how messed up you are. First;

"You've said repeatedly that a state can't restrict abortion because it would violate a woman's constitutional rights."

Then earlier;

"Yes it does however abortion is not one of those rights."

And you swing back and forth like a pendulum."

- You are an insane mental patient. HOW does my pointing out that YOU keep saying that a state can't restrict abortion because it would violate a woman's constitutional rights contradict with ME saying that abortion is not a protected right? Are you serious?

[RolandCuthbert]

1. So that's why you said I was siding with the Federal government in an attempt to make a state honor its obligations to females? Like I said you are disingenuous liar. I have a view that woman has rights. . . somehow that means I am a federalist. . . when the fact is, a woman's rights supercede all federal or state law.

2. All a state has to do is ban abortion without violating a woman's right to privacy or life. So you have revealed yourself. This is about control. Not abortion.

3. But a state can rule that with your view. . . right? A state can reach a conclusion that a woman may have to accept risk to her life, because they believe she must take a pregnancy to term. And again, there is no debate about her right to life and to privacy. There is only debate about the fetus.

4. You are liar. You said, I claimed abortion was a constitutional right.

No matter how you dress it up, no matter how you twist it. . . that is what you calimed and that is a lie now, was a lie before and will always be a lie.

A state can ban abortion, but simply honor a woman's right to privacy and her right to life.

They choose not to. So the we expect the Federal government to protect these rights, since current legislation in some states violate women's rights. Women have been investigated for the charge of murder when having a miscarriage. That is fact.

My friend and his wife had three miscarriages before a successful pregnancy. We had a funeral for each of those miscarriages. At one service, we literally had to hold him up because he was so distraught. A state would investigate this devastated family for the charge of murder over a miscarriage. And that would not be just a violation of his wife's rights. . . but his as well.

[Opinion Owner]

"You are liar. You said, I claimed abortion was a constitutional right.”
- Look guy. Just answer me this. Is abortion protected by the constitution? Stick with one answer here. You’re trying to be evasive here. On the one hand, you are saying you know abortion is not in the constitution and is not a constitutional right. On the other hand, you are saying a state can’t ban abortion without violating a woman’s constitutional rights - this would mean abortion is protected by the constitution. So which is it you dishonest scumbag? Is abortion constitutionally protected or not?

"My friend and his wife had three miscarriages before a successful pregnancy. We had a funeral for each of those miscarriages. At one service, we literally had to hold him up because he was so distraught.”
- If a fetus was really an unimportant clump of cells, there wouldn’t be any need to take this so seriously. But there is, and that's a terrible situation. I’m sorry that happened to them.

[ADrifter]

@po1989 - you have said this a few times in different ways...

"Despite a woman's Constitutional rights being violated."
- What right? The right to privacy? That's not being violated.

How is a woman's right not being violated? If the government investigated YOU as a potential father because your wife had a miscarriage because you happened to visit family in a state where abortion is legal (and where you live it is not) is that not violating YOUR rights?

[RolandCuthbert]

1. There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion. I am not being evasive. I told you, you disingenuous liar, that my issue was a woman's right to life and to privacy. You excuse the suspension of these rights because getting an abortion violates your personal belief system. And if you use that reasoning, then any right that you claim isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution can be taken away. And I told you already. All you have to do is ban abortion without violating these rights. The fact is you don't care about abortion, you care about control. Evidenced by your refusal to address that option.

2. This shows you to be a disingenuous liar. Instead of protecting this family from scrutiny, instead protecting their privacy during the worst moment of their lives, you would let state investigate them over your extremist nonsensical beliefs. "That oh, we can do this because it isn't an umimportant clump of cells." I invited someone I respect to this conversation. I will uninvite them now. You are just a simpleton troll.

[Opinion Owner]

@ADrifter Please tell me you're not an out and out lunatic like this Roland guy? I can only handle one person at a time who will make things up and gaslight in every paragraph.

"How is a woman's right not being violated? If the government investigated YOU as a potential father because your wife had a miscarriage because you happened to visit family in a state where abortion is legal (and where you live it is not) is that not violating YOUR rights"

Okay so my point is this. Which right, exactly, is violated? A right to privacy as it's described in the constitution doesn't confer anything about abortion. Would a right to privacy apply if a mother killed her one year old? No. So in order for a right to privacy to protect abortion, it would have to specifically mentioned that (which like I said it doesn't). If the argument is that the unborn have no constitutional protections, that's a different debate. But right to privacy wouldn't protect abortion if an unborn baby has rights

[RolandCuthbert]

@po1989 So you indeed are insane. In your mind a miscarriage is the same as murder.

Case closed.

[Opinion Owner]

"This shows you to be a disingenuous liar. Instead of protecting this family from scrutiny, instead protecting their privacy during the worst moment of their lives, you would let state investigate them over your extremist nonsensical beliefs. "That oh, we can do this because it isn't an umimportant clump of cells."

You don't know how to read. Once again I was saying the opposite. You disrespectful, ignorant, sad man.

[Opinion Owner]

I didn't say anything about a miscarriage. I was talking about abortion as a form of birth control. You can't read.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are a liar. You said that proves your point because it isn't an unimportant clump of cells.

That does not stop a religious extremist state official such as yourself from investigating my friend's wife, to prove or disprove an abortion took place.

You are a lying troll. Period.

@ADrifter You understand that this is not fantasy. A woman was just convicted recently of manslaughter because she pregnant and had a miscarriage. She started a fight with another woman who then shot her with a gun. The gunshot wound caused her to miscarry. She was arrested for the manslaughter of her own fetus.

And he claims we are irrational.

[RolandCuthbert]

@po1989 Oh, you didn't mention anything about miscarriages, I just pretty much mentioned them in ever other post since we started talking. If you don't know what a miscarriage is use google.

Or stop pretending you care about abortions. Either one.

[Opinion Owner]

"You are a liar. You said that proves your point because it isn't an unimportant clump of cells."
- I said it proves it's not unimportant but that is it. You are a liar. You for say I advocated for treating miscarriages as abortions when I said no such thing. Over and over you make up false things, things that I never said, and have the audacity to call me a liar after doing it. You are a dirty, filthy liar.

"A woman was just convicted recently of manslaughter because she pregnant and had a miscarriage. She started a fight with another woman who then shot her with a gun. The gunshot wound caused her to miscarry. She was arrested for the manslaughter of her own fetus."
- You know - I don't agree with this at all. You are just assuming I do based on the strawman that you have built of me.

"And he claims we are irrational."
- I said YOU are, I never said anything about your friend. Once again you're putting words in my mouth. You lie and lie and lie about things I've said. At one point you were trying to say I said something about the government and women being interchangeable? It's completely ridiculous.

[Opinion Owner]

For the record, I don't think miscarriages should be treated as abortions and I think the right to choose should apply for a woman in cases of medical emergency (just as killing another adult in a life or death self defense situation is permissible). None of that goes against my framework.

[RolandCuthbert]

Really? You don't believe that a state has the right to investigate women for miscarriages? You mean you will contradict your own statements and claim that a state can't suspend a woman's right to privacy over the religious belief that a fetus is a person?

That's why you are a lying troll.

I don't care what you do not agree with. You agreed to giving the state the power to investigate a woman, comb through her medical history, the treatment plan developed with her doctor, her friends and family just to prove or disprove a "murder" took place. Because that is what every miscarriage is under Alabama state law. It is a possible murder scene. And there is no protection for families suffering the tragedy of a miscarriage.

Then in the most bizarre outcome. You agree that the state has the power to intervene in a medical decision between a woman and her doctor in the event her life might be endangered by her pregnancy. As we have documented evidence that certain states have denied petitions for abortions based upon health concerns.

These are facts. No matter what your unimportant concerns are. These are people's lives and rights being jeopardized. They cannot do a thing with your "concerns".

And somehow, we are the irrational ones.

[Opinion Owner]

"Really? You don't believe that a state has the right to investigate women for miscarriages?"
- Really. Not without some special evidence that it wasn't a miscarriage.

"You mean you will contradict your own statements and claim that a state can't suspend a woman's right to privacy over the religious belief that a fetus is a person?"
- I never claimed abortion had anything to do with a right to privacy. You did. You're making up lies about what I said again. And we don't investigate for murder every time someone dies do we?

"I don't care what you do not agree with. You agreed to giving the state the power to investigate a woman, comb through her medical history, the treatment plan developed with her doctor, her friends and family just to prove or disprove a "murder" took place."
- Putting words in my mouth again.

"And somehow, we are the irrational ones."
- Again. You are irrational. You are a liar. I make no claim about someone else. You are completely dishonest and have lied about things that I have said over and over again putting words in my mouth.

[ADrifter]

@po1989 - you said > Okay so my point is this. Which right, exactly, is violated? A right to privacy as it's described in the constitution doesn't confer anything about abortion. Would a right to privacy apply if a mother killed her one year old? No. So in order for a right to privacy to protect abortion, it would have to specifically mentioned that (which like I said it doesn't). If the argument is that the unborn have no constitutional protections, that's a different debate. But right to privacy wouldn't protect abortion if an unborn baby has rights"

An unborn baby doesn't have rights, that's the thing. Try, and I empathize try, to educate yourself about the Constitution if you're going to refer to it. There is nothing, not even a single word, giving an unborn baby any rights in the Constitution.

Until it is born as per the Constitution it doesn't exist. Until it is born as per the Bible even it doesn't exist because like the Constitution the Bible doesn't say anything about abortion**.

So yes this does violate a woman's rights, or her husband's rights since you seemed to lack the ability to comprehend what I said with the scenario, to privacy. Which by Constitutional law is ILLEGAL. This actually exists in the Constitution which is far more than an unborn baby's imaginary rights can say.

Quite honestly if you want to blubber about children & rights & the Constitution then you should blubber about children left to be raised by crackheads & boozehounds and how so few care for the child's rights.

[Opinion Owner]

"An unborn baby doesn't have rights, that's the thing. Try, and I empathize try, to educate yourself about the Constitution if you're going to refer to it. There is nothing, not even a single word, giving an unborn baby any rights in the Constitution"
- Please tell me where in the constitution are the unborn excluded from having rights? Why do you assume the lack of specifically mentioning the unborn means that it should be assumed as a negative? Perhaps the default assumption - unless specified otherwise - is that the unborn deserve constitutional protection. I have addressed this before - I'm not saying the way you are assuming is explicitly wrong, I'm saying you are wrong to consider it a fact and not an opinion that constitutional protections don't apply to the unborn.

"So yes this does violate a woman's rights, or her husband's rights since you seemed to lack the ability to comprehend what I said with the scenario"
- I don't "lack the ability", I chose to respond to a portion of what you wrote rather than writing a novel responding to every point. I explained why a right to privacy does not constitutionally protect abortion. Just as a right to privacy wouldn't protect murdering a baby that had already been born.

[ADrifter]

@po1989 - you said
Please tell me where in the constitution are the unborn excluded from having rights? Why do you assume the lack of specifically mentioning the unborn means that it should be assumed as a negative?

Let me turn it around since you love to spout nonsense. WHERE in the Constitution does it say an unborn baby has rights? WHERE in the Bible does it say an unborn baby has rights? No where.

Because even during those times abortions were common enough. Herbal concoctions & various procedures were just as potent for causing an abortion as any chemical concoction or procedure today. Anyone who has graduated history & related courses above high school level knows this.

So WHY would an unborn babe have rights when neither law nor religion grant it?

>> I don't "lack the ability", I chose to respond to a portion of what you wrote rather than writing a novel responding to every point. I explained why a right to privacy does not constitutionally protect abortion. Just as a right to privacy wouldn't protect murdering a baby that had already been born.

An unborn babe isn't born, it doesn't exist by Constitutional law or by religion.

[Opinion Owner]

"Let me turn it around since you love to spout nonsense. WHERE in the Constitution does it say an unborn baby has rights? WHERE in the Bible does it say an unborn baby has rights? No where."
- I didn't say it did. Did you read where I said this is a matter of opinion and not fact? I don't require you to accept my opinion that the unborn have rights, because I recognize it's just an opinion. But your argument requires me to accept your opinion (not fact) which I don't. And I don't know what the bible has to do with the constitution.

"An unborn babe isn't born, it doesn't exist by Constitutional law or by religion."
Jeremiah 1 5 would contradict this, if you care about the bible.

[ADrifter]

@po1989 - It is funny how you change your tune when confronted with reality. Like a weasel.

Now if is an opinion then STOP saying or implying that unborn babies have rights because by Constitutional right & law because they do not. They never did and they never will.

Which is far less than any woman can say. Because a woman has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy.

The right to privacy is indeed CONSTITUTIONAL and almost everything done to infringe upon that RIGHT, without justifiable grounds (such as investigating drug dealings), is very oftentimes deemed ILLEGAL. It says so in the Constitution for anyone who reads & comprehends the different Amendments.

So that means ANY and ALL investigative measures taken by states where abortion is "banned" towards a woman who has a miscarriage, etc. are ILLEGAL and a VIOLATION of her constitutional rights. Trying to make this discovery & violating her rights to privacy is AN ILLEGAL ACT and should be PUNISHED. Immediately.

@RolandCuthbert
Similarly what Roland mentioned about a woman apparently having a miscarriage due to being shot & apparently charged is beyond barbaric but than that's to be expected of states that banned abortion.

Even before Roe vs Wade was overturned such regions in the USA could be called backwards compared to the rest of the Americas & most certainly to the rest of the world.

[ADrifter]

@po1989 - you said
An unborn babe isn't born, it doesn't exist by Constitutional law or by religion."
Jeremiah 1 5 would contradict this, if you care about the bible.

Jeremiah 1 5 does not refer to abortion in any way, shape or form and DOES NOT give the fetus any more rights than a clump of dirt.
TRY and learn the Bible like you should TRY and learn the Constitution. The ONLY rightful mention of abortion and such aspects is Exodus. Exodus 21:22-23 to be exact. THAT is the ONLY section that covers ANYTHING remotely related to abortion or fetus rights.

[ADrifter]

@po1989 - in fact jeremiah 1 5 taken in the ENTIRE content of the section refers to Jesus not you, not me and nobody & nothing else.

[Opinion Owner]

"It is funny how you change your tune when confronted with reality. Like a weasel."
- WTF are you talking about? I didn't change anything. I get that y'all are pro-choice, but that doesn't mean you get to choose to put words in my mouth. I've actually been very consistent on this.

"Now if is an opinion then STOP saying or implying that unborn babies have rights because by Constitutional right & law because they do not. They never did and they never will."
- If I do, will you stop saying or implying that unborn babies don't have constitutional laws/rights, since that is just an opinion as well? Somehow I doubt it. You can't have it both ways. I'm not granting you your point about the unborn having no rights, I'm just recognizing that you don't have to accept my premise either. I know authoritarians have a hard time taking that for an answer.

"Which is far less than any woman can say. Because a woman has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to privacy."
- Privacy isn't a synonym for abortion.

"Similarly what Roland mentioned about a woman apparently having a miscarriage due to being shot & apparently charged is beyond barbaric but than that's to be expected of states that banned abortion."
- I never support miscarriages being treated as abortions. These are not the same thing. I also support a woman's right to choose during serious medical emergency situations. I've just been strawmanned into being viewed as though I support either of those things when in reality I never have.

"Jeremiah 1 5 does not refer to abortion in any way, shape or form and DOES NOT give the fetus any more rights than a clump of dirt."
- Again I never said it was about abortion, my point was that in the bible God acknowledges the humanity of the unborn. I don't know why you're acting as though you care about the bible.

[Opinion Owner]

@adrifter You tell me (condescendingly) to learn the constitution and the bible. But you're in over your head. Jeremiah 1:5 is not about Jesus. I'm not willing to engage any further if you don't acknowledge your disrespectful tone is misplaced here and that you are either lying or were uninformed when you wrote this comment to me. Because that verse is not even talking about Jesus specifically.

[ADrifter]

@po1989 - I was condescending because you go on & on as how YOU take things NOT how it is written. As I proved multiple times with the issue of constitutional rights to unborn babies. There are none. There never were any rights. And there never will be any rights. As per the constitution.

And you refused to acknowledge reality - and what is actually written on the constitution - which applies to the right of privacy for one.

Someone so... blind... as you is not worth speaking to in any other way than condescendingly. People who are intelligent... learn. People who are intelligent... admit they are wrong. People who are intelligent... consider others' opinions.

You do not. And once again like with the constitution that you were dead wrong about, you're dead wrong about Jeremiah 1:5 .

As I proved with the constitutional issue. Unborn

[Opinion Owner]

@ADrifter

"You do not. And once again like with the constitution that you were dead wrong about, you're dead wrong about Jeremiah 1:5 ."

You are hilariously unaware of yourself. First of all, the literal "you" in Jeremiah 1:5 was the prophet Jeremiah, not Jesus. A good clue for someone like yourself who pretends to be a biblical expert (but knows little to nothing of the bible) is that Jeremiah is in the old testament. Then you repeat you're incorrect assertion that I was wrong about the verse without even fact checking yourself and you tell me that I am the one who can't admit being wrong. You can't make this stuff up. I'm not going to address the abortion stuff until you admit that you were the one who was wrong about Jeremiah 1:5 and that it was pigheaded of you to defame me about this.

[ADrifter]

@po1989 - defame you, your ego is pathetic. As you had to look up Jeremiah 1:5 to see what it actually was about.

You did originally try to pretend that it was about the right given to any fetus when you originally mentioned it. Why else would I have laughed at your ignorance & quoted the proper close reference about abortion in Exodus? I referred to Jesus on purpose to see if you knew what Jeremiah was about & that it has taken you this long to respond proves you didn't.

And like everything else you've spouted off about you twist around like a serpent... a weasel... when things don't work out like you first assumed.

[Opinion Owner]

@ADrifter

"defame you, your ego is pathetic. As you had to look up Jeremiah 1:5 to see what it actually was about."
- First of all I already knew that verse wasn't about Jesus because it's in the old testament. Second of all. You talked all that nasty smack about not admitting I was wrong and you can't even admit you're wrong?

"You did originally try to pretend that it was about the right given to any fetus when you originally mentioned it. Why else would I have laughed at your ignorance & quoted the proper close reference about abortion in Exodus?"
- I quoted the verse to show that the bible does talk about the unborn having value. You laughed at me because you're an ignorant shrew who knows nothing of the bible and can't admit to being wrong.

"I referred to Jesus on purpose to see if you knew what Jeremiah was about & that it has taken you this long to respond proves you didn't."
- No you didn't. I don't buy this for a second. You looked it up and you realized I was right. You didn't know the verse and now you're trying to save face because you are a rat.

"And like everything else you've spouted off about you twist around like a serpent... a weasel... when things don't work out like you first assumed."
- I think you're describing yourself here.

[Zeus_66]

In case you haven't picked up on this yet, but most people aren't the sharpest or brightest. They are consumed and told what to believe. Difficult to get through to these people. Most are liberal sheeple puppets. You know, the ones that scream at the sky. They cannot be reasoned with, period. They have a mental disorder. Nothing can be done.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, you are criticizing folks while using the handle "Zeus". Haha!!!

As for the debate, I am saying find a way to look at the legal argument. No court argues that this is about choice vs life. And you look like the type of sheeple who would claim this is about the life of the unborn.

The actual argument is framed in terms of constitutional rights. I am pretty certain you haven't a clue.

[Zeus_66]

The handle was available on another platform years ago. I just carry the handle everywhere I go now.

Well, somehow, not only did you misinterpret what I said, you feebly attempted to attack me through the worst kind of ignorance. First, you have absolutely no idea where I personally stand on the issue of abortion, as nothing I said suggests it. Second, do you really want to be shredded on how the Constitution works and how SCOTUS came to their decision? If so, I highly recommend you read my prior posts. I am very well aware of due process as interpreted to apply towards a woman's right to privacy.

I'm gonna cut you some slack and request you read my response again. If/When you decide to attack me, trust me when I say I'm more than ready to destroy your simpleminded thoughts that you believe are actually intellectual, most likely only posted so you can engage with people like me who will shut you down faster than a strip club in Salt Lake City.

Standing by...

[RolandCuthbert]

Why not call yourself God? That would be even more stupid and hilarious.

And er. . . nope, I am not going back to find your posts. You should have sufficient brain power to post your views and your reasoning right here. And you posted me criticizing "liberals" as though there isn't a gigantic movement of nimrods chanting "right to life".

The legal debate has never included the words "right to life". And the current ruling claimed that the word abortion is not in the Constitution. So no one has a Constitutional right to an abortion.

So my response to you, is about how you stepped to me in your first post.

If you are going to throw around claims of "sheeple" acknowledge both sides.

[Zeus_66]

I never criticized you, you freaking idiot. I was talking about people in general.

[RolandCuthbert]

You are so stupid. How did my post go over your head?

What did I say?

So my response to you, is about how you stepped to me in your first post.

If you are going to throw around claims of "sheeple" acknowledge both sides.

[Zeus_66]

Holy Moses. It was a general response that was meant to complement your question and opinion. Just stop while you're behind. The more you reply, the more my original comment applies to you.

[RolandCuthbert]

Dude, I think you are confusing yourself.

It was a compliment to me. But an insult to folks you disagree with politically. And I am just saying, sheeple are the folks who claim. . . this is about choice. . . and who claim this is about life.

Because it is about neither.

[Zeus_66]

I know this.

[Mijopapi2000]

Here is the thing Roland there should be no debate there should be no supreme court bodily autonomy is a human right whether we are talking about masks, vaccines, abortions or anything and not only this kind of issue but on all issues no politician or judge or anyone should be telling anybody what to do in their life but we live in a society of statists who love being slaves and being told what to do.

[RolandCuthbert]

You understand that legal reasoning has not made it into the courts. There was a debate about privacy and life. Then another about abortion. No one has argued about body autonomy.

[007kingifrit]

because the privacy debate is nonsense. even if you have privacy we can still say what is and isn't legal behind closed doors. so privacy is not the basis for anything legal or constitutional.

this is about abortion, you are for it, against it, or somewhere in the middle. privacy is the excuse debate, roe was badly decided on no legal grounds.

[RolandCuthbert]

There is nothing logical about what you said. As Alito stated, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution.

But the right to privacy is.

Fix your brain.