Little

Overturn Roe V Wade

370 posts in this topic

Leftists are VERY worried about that. 

 

Very.

 

 

Must have been a crappy ruling if it could be so easy to overturn.

 

 

Q for D is for the left wingers.

 

What will be the legal criteria, the angle, the "hook" that the republicans will use to overturn the decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 mins ago, Little said:

Leftists are VERY worried about that. 

 

Very.

 

 

Must have been a crappy ruling if it could be so easy to overturn.

 

 

Q for D is for the left wingers.

 

What will be the legal criteria, the angle, the "hook" that the republicans will use to overturn the decision?

 

It is my understanding their fear is that the decisions on abortion legality will be returned to the individual states.

Now, say, Kansas can outlaw legal abortions, and the poor Kansas women can not afford to travel to an abortion legal state for the procedure.

Libs are generally afraid of states rights when it might rule against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 mins ago, Little said:

Leftists are VERY worried about that. 

 

Very.

 

 

Must have been a crappy ruling if it could be so easy to overturn.

 

 

Q for D is for the left wingers.

 

What will be the legal criteria, the angle, the "hook" that the republicans will use to overturn the decision?

 

oooh ohhh i got one

 

if the government has no right to know if and why a woman is getting an abortion, then they have no right knowing how much money people earn in a year in order to tax them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Science.  And advances in science since Roev Wade.  The leftists don’t have science on their side.  Fetal viability 

Edited by jkrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the decision was based on some sort of right to privacy.  It is shaky at best.  That is why they are so worried, its a crap decision.

 

I was wondering if they knoew anything about it, or are they just lashing out.

 

Yes it will go back to the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Colin Kaepernick and the black panthers at the NEA told the kids they have  the right to be alive.  #7

 

Alive happens way earlier now than 1972.  

 

At least one leftist here was arguing Kaepernick’s list are actual rights.

 

If that is correct, you don’t need a conservative justice to overturn Roe

 

 

Edited by jkrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why they're so freaked out...in the worst case scenario (through their eyes), it'll just go back to the states and the more liberal ones will just keep the law in place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are scared 'cause it's a **** decision - made up entirely.  The "penumbras" and "emanations" was literally made up and then applied against medical technology of the time.  I defy ANYONE to read that decision and rationally explain it.  It is utter BS.  

 

  I don't see it being overturned based upon stare decisis, but I DO see limitations being enacted at the federal several.  The States are free to do what they deem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Little said:

 

What will be the legal criteria, the angle, the "hook" that the republicans will use to overturn the decision?

I think some man could sue to stop an abortion, on the grounds that the unborn baby is not part of the woman's body, since half the babies DNA is his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 mins ago, JimP said:

They are scared 'cause it's a **** decision - made up entirely.  The "penumbras" and "emanations" was literally made up and then applied against medical technology of the time.  I defy ANYONE to read that decision and rationally explain it.  It is utter BS.  

 

  I don't see it being overturned based upon stare decisis, but I DO see limitations being enacted at the federal several.  The States are free to do what they deem.  

I’d rather that they’d settle it along the lines of the equal protection clause as turning it back to the states really only affects the poor that can’t afford to travel. Laws shouldn’t have a disproportionate impact on a particular class.

 

However, I’d also like to see abortions beyond 24 weeks (current line where a fetus can survive outside the womb) made illegal as I believe the fetus has become a legal person at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rog, but the argument baselines at "what point does the "spark of life" transmit to the baby"?  (my term).  I.E., if you believe that life is started at conception, than you have no argument as to the rights of the woman if you are willing to ignore the rights of the child.   

 

If we are talking "convenience" and viability, than restrictions are appropriate.    

 

  I don't "get" the "right to choose" argument fomented by pro-abortion folks since we are talking "choices"; the child has no-such choice.   

 

  This is difficult stuff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, JimP said:

Rog, but the argument baselines at "what point does the "spark of life" transmit to the baby"?  (my term).  I.E., if you believe that life is started at conception, than you have no argument as to the rights of the woman if you are willing to ignore the rights of the child.   

 

If we are talking "convenience" and viability, than restrictions are appropriate.    

 

  I don't "get" the "right to choose" argument fomented by pro-abortion folks since we are talking "choices"; the child has no-such choice.   

 

  This is difficult stuff.  

Life is different than being considered a legal person. Obviously, life begins at conception. The question is when that life is a person. I have trouble calling a life that is fully dependent on someone else’s body to live a legal person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think that way as well, in fact, I used a much harsher term for the child.   Now I'm not so sure.   Remember, a corporate entity is a "legal person" as well; we could probably do worse than admitting that a child is a "legal person."    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone kills a pregnant woman, they get charged with two counts of murder.

 

How can you murder a nonperson ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just now, The Dude said:

. I have trouble calling a life that is fully dependent on someone else’s body to live a legal person. 

When a child is born that child is dependent on another body to live for several years.

Is that child not a legal person? 

Edited by Gotcow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.