Off Topic · OT - Roe V Wade overturned (page 5)

wargames wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-reconsider-contraception-gay-marriage-rulings

Once again what you’re saying does not align with the radical conservative Supreme Court

What I am saying does not align with what Fox News is saying. And there is no reason why it should.

I have actually cared to open the link to Justice Thomas's opinion referred to by Fox, and I think his point is entirely different that what Fox makes of it. Justice Thomas does not argue against individual rights not enumerated by the Constitution, but rather against the use of the due process clause as grounds for protecting them. His reasoning for not allowing the due process argument is as follows:

In practice the Court’s approach for identifying those “fundamental” rights “unquestionably involves policymaking rather than neutral legal analysis. The Court divines new rights in line with “its own, extraconstitutional value preferences” and nullifies state laws that do not align with the judicially created guarantees.

So he actually warns against partisan law-making via the SCOTUS, which he claims has been happening when the due process clause gets invoked as grounds for protecting individual rights on federal level. And there is some merit to his argument: try too much flimsy backdoor stuff, and eventually you may get called on it and it will backfire. This is exactly how we lost on women's right to choose right now.

foosballnick wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.

Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.

After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.

Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.

Exactly. People like him want to wash their hands of everything at a federal level as if the Constitution was passed from God and anything not specificslly mentioned needs to go to the states. Woman who have miscarriages can now essentially be arrested under suspicion of abortion in some states.

Or consider this, a woman in the first few weeks of her pregnancy has a horrible diet or decided to have a few drinks on a Friday night. If a fertilized egg is consider a human upon conception, does that mean the woman can now be charged with child abuse? Sounds extreme and it may be an exaggeration, but using the same anti-abortion logic that ending a pregnancy at any point after conception is "murder" why wouldn't this example be considered child abuse?

If a social worker found out a mother was feeding your kid cake and ice cream three times a day or giving her kid alcohol, what would happen to her? We're heading down a slippery slope.

foosballnick wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

wargames wrote:
The Court does not uphold the constitution they interpret it. That’s the difference between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Ed. An interpretation.

https://constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions

These are not apolitical acts though historically the SC has tried to justify their decision based on “trends” that both the public and scholars can see like state rights or support of businesses or support of federal authority or even a hard interpretation of the constitution.

This particular court are just radical conservatives.

When Clarence Thomas can write in his decision “let’s go after gay marriage next” you know what your dealing with. For example a 101 year rule that the court felt best to ignore was overturned a month after a psycho killed children in a school with the cops right outside his door. That isn’t upholding the constitution, that is being an activist court imposing your political views on the majority. The SC rarely does that because whenever they have… it leads to chaos and social unrest.

You can call it "uphold" or "interpret" - it won't change the gist of my argument. I do not think the SCOTUS is being partisan or maliciously pursuing conservative agenda here. The Constitution explicitly says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and it does not say "the right of the people to have Abortions shall not be infringed". I am no consitutional scholar or jurist, but the fact that the SCOTUS upholds an explicitly stated constitutional right and overturns an earlier interpretation purporting a constitutional right not so explicitly stated does not stike me as being contrary to common sense.
Women have had a 100 years since gaining the right to vote and 50 years since Roe vs Wade to get the right to abortion worked into the Constitution. True, Consitutional amendments are a difficult process, but they offer much more solid ground that a SCOTUS ruling, and are worth pursing if abortion is such a fundamental issue.

The Roe Wade decision did not legslize abortion. Rather is protected a woman's right to an abortion under the 14th Amendment right to privacy provision. With the elimination of this precident, it leaves open related rulings rooted in the 14th amendment such as Gay Marriage. Interracial Marriage was not protected until 1967 under the 14th. Imagine if the SCOTUS reversed the Loving v Virginia ruling which left interracial marriage up to the states and trigger laws in southern states outlawed it? From a legal/constitutional standpoint, what you are arguing would be essentially the same as the Roe reversal. You're deluding yourself if you believe that the SCOTUS has not become politicized and polarized with decisions along party lines. There are lobbyists and dark money involved. The SCOTUS has never moved backwards like this in taking away rights in modern history.

This piece of shit wants to allow states to ban contraception. We might as well move to Iran

In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. "Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents."

Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark 1965 case which ruled the use of contraception between two married individuals was a matter of privacy and constitutionally protected.

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 dealt with homosexual sex between consenting parties, and Obergefell v. Hodges treaded the same territory in 2015 to rule gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

A judge in Brazil has refused to let an 11-year-old rape victim have an abortion — and ordered the girl to be detained to prevent her from trying to get one.

Coming to a Red State near you.

Jmpasq wrote:A judge in Brazil has refused to let an 11-year-old rape victim have an abortion — and ordered the girl to be detained to prevent her from trying to get one.

Coming to a Red State near you.

Did you mean Brazil or do you mean Arkansas that literally has the same policy on their books right now?

https://katv.com/news/local/governor-att...

In 2019, Arkansas lawmakers passed Act 180, a ‘trigger’ statute that was signed into law by Gov. Asa Hutchinson. The legislation included language that this would become law if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The law also known as The Arkansas Human Life Protection Act bans all abortions except so save a mother's life in an emergency medical situation, it does not include exceptions for rape or incest victims. It also bans over the counter medications such as Plan B, the morning-after pill.

Rutledge, in a signing ceremony on Friday, certified the law and discussed the implications of the ruling on the state.

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:A judge in Brazil has refused to let an 11-year-old rape victim have an abortion — and ordered the girl to be detained to prevent her from trying to get one.

Coming to a Red State near you.

Did you mean Brazil or do you mean Arkansas that literally has the same policy on their books right now?

https://katv.com/news/local/governor-att...

In 2019, Arkansas lawmakers passed Act 180, a ‘trigger’ statute that was signed into law by Gov. Asa Hutchinson. The legislation included language that this would become law if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The law also known as The Arkansas Human Life Protection Act bans all abortions except so save a mother's life in an emergency medical situation, it does not include exceptions for rape or incest victims. It also bans over the counter medications such as Plan B, the morning-after pill.

Rutledge, in a signing ceremony on Friday, certified the law and discussed the implications of the ruling on the state.

Never thought I'd see the day that Plan B smuggling would become a lucrative career

Jmpasq wrote:
This piece of shit wants to allow states to ban contraception. We might as well move to Iran

In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. "Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents."

Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark 1965 case which ruled the use of contraception between two married individuals was a matter of privacy and constitutionally protected.

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 dealt with homosexual sex between consenting parties, and Obergefell v. Hodges treaded the same territory in 2015 to rule gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Read Thomas's full opinion. The way I have read it, I think that taking this quote separately out of context creates a very misleading impression of what he actually meant to communicate.

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:A judge in Brazil has refused to let an 11-year-old rape victim have an abortion — and ordered the girl to be detained to prevent her from trying to get one.

Coming to a Red State near you.

Did you mean Brazil or do you mean Arkansas that literally has the same policy on their books right now?

https://katv.com/news/local/governor-att...

In 2019, Arkansas lawmakers passed Act 180, a ‘trigger’ statute that was signed into law by Gov. Asa Hutchinson. The legislation included language that this would become law if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The law also known as The Arkansas Human Life Protection Act bans all abortions except so save a mother's life in an emergency medical situation, it does not include exceptions for rape or incest victims. It also bans over the counter medications such as Plan B, the morning-after pill.

Rutledge, in a signing ceremony on Friday, certified the law and discussed the implications of the ruling on the state.

So it's already here.
No matter how probirthers try to spin their morality to me, it just always comes back to whether someone can control what happens to their own body. The state should not be able to force you to carry a child. To me, that's the end of the argument. Any other decision means the state owns woman.

Jmpasq wrote:A judge in Brazil has refused to let an 11-year-old rape victim have an abortion — and ordered the girl to be detained to prevent her from trying to get one.

Coming to a Red State near you.

What if the rapist was willing to pay for day care?

Jmpasq wrote:

martin wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:A judge in Brazil has refused to let an 11-year-old rape victim have an abortion — and ordered the girl to be detained to prevent her from trying to get one.

Coming to a Red State near you.

Did you mean Brazil or do you mean Arkansas that literally has the same policy on their books right now?

https://katv.com/news/local/governor-att...

In 2019, Arkansas lawmakers passed Act 180, a ‘trigger’ statute that was signed into law by Gov. Asa Hutchinson. The legislation included language that this would become law if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The law also known as The Arkansas Human Life Protection Act bans all abortions except so save a mother's life in an emergency medical situation, it does not include exceptions for rape or incest victims. It also bans over the counter medications such as Plan B, the morning-after pill.

Rutledge, in a signing ceremony on Friday, certified the law and discussed the implications of the ruling on the state.

So it's already here.
No matter how probirthers try to spin their morality to me, it just always comes back to whether someone can control what happens to their own body. The state should not be able to force you to carry a child. To me, that's the end of the argument. Any other decision means the state owns woman.

Well now women is in full control of when a man ejaculates in them

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1540537530369642497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1540537530369642497%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=

Click here to view the Tweet

I would say that if women are required by law to take a baby to term in certain states, those same states need to have a higher level of accountability for making sure those women have a the healthcare and support structure to make sure the new life can have a quality upbringing. And higher accountability for the other parent.

technomaster wrote:I would say that if women are required by law to take a baby to term in certain states, those same states need to have a higher level of accountability for making sure those women have a the healthcare and support structure to make sure the new life can have a quality upbringing. And higher accountability for the other parent.

You’re actually talking about taking care of children… unfortunately that’s not in the constitution either.

technomaster wrote:I would say that if women are required by law to take a baby to term in certain states, those same states need to have a higher level of accountability for making sure those women have a the healthcare and support structure to make sure the new life can have a quality upbringing. And higher accountability for the other parent.

Yep, and a mandatory national DNA bank, so that the other parent can always be clearly established and be held liable. And then the logical next step of an electronic social score system, like in China. And America will be great again. Just like what those anti-abortionists probably want.

technomaster wrote:I would say that if women are required by law to take a baby to term in certain states, those same states need to have a higher level of accountability for making sure those women have a the healthcare and support structure to make sure the new life can have a quality upbringing. And higher accountability for the other parent.

Lol yeah right that ain’t happening. There’s a better chance the Knicks sweep the warriors in the nba finals next season

All that’s happening is child poverty rates are going to increase and illegal back alley abortions increase in the south and Midwest. Welcome to the Christian Republic of America

ESOMKnicks wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

smackeddog wrote:
Yeah, can you imagine the uproar if women decided that sperm were human lives and so banned whacking off or any form of ejeculation outside of baby making, using the justification "that's just where I think life begins- your murdering every time you crack one off!"?

Given that there are millions of sperm in a single ejaculate, whacking off would not be just murder, but mass genocide, exceeding the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined.

I honestly struggle with the concept of life beginning at conception. There is no way a fetus in the early stages of development is a distinct living creature, it is just a clot of unconscious organic matter, same as the mother's kidney or spleen. Life may well be considered to form before birth, but no way it forms right at conception. And I am a deeply religious man.

I hate the whacking-off argument because it's illogical. Every time a guy doesn't pull out his failure to do so does not result in pregnancy 100% of the time.

Interesting you used the term "early stages of development" and then used organic matter. If the organic matter is allowed to develop the result is life. However, purposely terminating the development is okay.

Very good that you are trying to apply Aristotelian teleological reasoning. Still, an acorn is not the same as an oak, organic is not the same as alive, alive is not the same as conscious, conscious is not the same as human.

+100

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:
This piece of shit wants to allow states to ban contraception. We might as well move to Iran

In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. "Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents."

Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark 1965 case which ruled the use of contraception between two married individuals was a matter of privacy and constitutionally protected.

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 dealt with homosexual sex between consenting parties, and Obergefell v. Hodges treaded the same territory in 2015 to rule gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Read Thomas's full opinion. The way I have read it, I think that taking this quote separately out of context creates a very misleading impression of what he actually meant to communicate.

Interesting how he didn't reference the Loving case...oh, I forgot, he's in an interracial marriage.

Welpee wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:
This piece of shit wants to allow states to ban contraception. We might as well move to Iran

In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. "Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents."

Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark 1965 case which ruled the use of contraception between two married individuals was a matter of privacy and constitutionally protected.

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 dealt with homosexual sex between consenting parties, and Obergefell v. Hodges treaded the same territory in 2015 to rule gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Read Thomas's full opinion. The way I have read it, I think that taking this quote separately out of context creates a very misleading impression of what he actually meant to communicate.

Interesting how he didn't reference the Loving case...oh, I forgot, he's in an interracial marriage.

Interracial? What do you consider the basics for being considered human and how many centuries of evolution to go does Ginni have to get there?

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:
This piece of shit wants to allow states to ban contraception. We might as well move to Iran

In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. "Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents."

Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark 1965 case which ruled the use of contraception between two married individuals was a matter of privacy and constitutionally protected.

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 dealt with homosexual sex between consenting parties, and Obergefell v. Hodges treaded the same territory in 2015 to rule gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Read Thomas's full opinion. The way I have read it, I think that taking this quote separately out of context creates a very misleading impression of what he actually meant to communicate.

Interesting how he didn't reference the Loving case...oh, I forgot, he's in an interracial marriage.

Interracial? What do you consider the basics for being considered human and how many centuries of evolution to go does Ginni have to get there?

I have no idea what you're talking about or asking.

My comment was in reference to important court cases Justice Thomas insinuated that we may need to revisit. The Loving case made it illegal to ban interracial marriage. My sarcastic comment suggested that he didn't include that case because he is in an interracial marriage, as in he doesn't want to revisit case rulings that affect him personally.

Hope this clarifies things.

What exactly forced this issue to the Supreme Court?

Not a fan of abortion but each individual should have absolute rights over their own bodies. How why is this even up for debate? The state or government cannot have say on s as n individuals body in anyway—I thought we were free?

BRIGGS wrote:What exactly forced this issue to the Supreme Court?

Not a fan of abortion but each individual should have absolute rights over their own bodies. How why is this even up for debate? The state or government cannot have say on s as n individuals body in anyway—I thought we were free?

Because there are a bunch of people who believe "America was great" in the 1950s and want to takes us back to that period of time.

Welpee wrote:My comment was in reference to important court cases Justice Thomas insinuated that we may need to revisit. The Loving case made it illegal to ban interracial marriage. My sarcastic comment suggested that he didn't include that case because he is in an interracial marriage, as in he doesn't want to revisit case rulings that affect him personally.

Hope this clarifies things.

Guys, I said this twice already. Do not take a Fox News report at face value. Go and read what Thomas actually wrote in his opinion. His issue is with the way the right to due process has been invoked to defend liberties which he does not think these rights cover. The interracial marriage case invoked the right to equal treatment, so for him it may be a different matter altogether. And he is against erroneous judicial arguments, not the liberties themselves. He insists that the SCOTUS should look at things from a purely judicial perspective, rather than political or social policy perspectives.
I am way in over my head on such juridical matters, so someone with a better understanding could perhaps clarify or correct me.