Abortion—Roe v Wade

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
I'm not asking for anyone to disregard the words, I'm saying that the words may not necessarily apply in these modern times, and we have to be willing to adopt our laws to suit our current times or we risk becoming hamstrung. All laws change to suit the times but for some reason the constitution seems to be exempt.
Our laws do change with the times by Congress and by state legislatures. The Constitution may be changed by the process of amendment. The last time it was amended was in 1992. It was the 27th Amendment which deals with congressional pay.

I have about half a dozen amendments to the Constitution that I wish for. There really isn’t a lot of popular pressure for amendments coming from the public which is why we don’t get them more often. The other reason is that it would be difficult to get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything. Nevertheless, it can be done.
 

Cacatuoidea

New member
We must never forget that the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free does not now, never has, and never will extend its rights and privileges to untermenschen, the inhabitants of unincorporated territories like Puerto Rico, because the natives are "alien races". We won't bother taking up the agony of the Native Americans expelled from their ancestral lands by settlers defiant of Congress fully knowing their actions would never be undone by Congress. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." (With respect to Kris, and John Buck.)

So why should women with unwanted babies be treated any differently? God bless Donald, God bless the GOP, God bless the filibuster, and God bless the 2024 Election.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
I suppose if you just keep stacking your premises with all these faulty "if" assumptions, you could support any conclusion you want. A nation that follows no laws or statutes is just fear-mongering(anarchy), and just ain't gonna happen. Is that what this is really about? We either accept this cop-out decision, or we descend into a lawless nation? The SC doesn't make laws, it makes rulings. I thought this was about the SC Justices refusing to INTERPRET the Constitution as it would apply to the abortion rights of women. Not simply ruling that since abortion rights are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment applies!
I’ll try to answer you one piece at a time. I’m working off an iPhone.

- I have actually read opinions by liberal academics who say that the words of the Constitution may be completely ignored as we see fit. A simple google search can bring up such articles. Fortunately, I don’t think the majority of Americans agree with that. We are either governed by the rule of law or we aren’t, and I choose to abide by the words of our Constitution. If we want to change it, there is a process for that. It doesn’t matter if one is liberal or conservative; abiding by those words protects us all.

- I agree with you that the role of the SC is to interpret the Constitution. The key words there are “the Constitution.” All 3 branches of the government are constrained by the law. The SC is constrained by the Constitution itself. What I mean by that is that, in essence, the SC may only rule on the constitutionality of a law or an action. But if the Constitution is silent on something, it is not the role of the SC to interpret that issue by effectively creating a law or a right. Instead, it is the role of the Legislative branch to do that.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. Therefore, the SC may rule on issues revolving around speech.

The 4th Amendment says that we shall be secure from unreasonable searches. Therefore, the SC may rule on what is an “unreasonable” search.

The 2nd Amendment concerns firearms. Therefore, the SC may rule on the nuances of the right to bear arms.

Etc, etc, etc …

But the Constitution is silent on abortion, medical privacy, or when or if an unborn may be deemed to be a human being. Therefore, in my opinion, the SC lacks the standing to make rulings on the issue.
That is what this latest ruling is saying. The SC is saying that the Roe v Wade decision crossed the line between interpreting the Constitution and creating a right. Creating a right is the purview of the Legislative branch, not the purview of the Judicial branch. And for that reason, they are saying that the Roe decision was flawed - an encroachment upon the role of the Legislative branch, an overreach by the Judicial branch.

The pro-choice side is already planning to introduce legislation at the federal level. This is where that debate belongs. The other solution is a constitutional amendment.

I think it is very important that the SC not be a political body. Our politics should be played out by our elected representatives. But the Judiciary should be above politics, above the desires and biases of themselves or the public. And they should be loyal only to the Constitution, and nothing else. And, they should always act with a strict clarity as to what their role is and then making sure they are staying within the limits of that role.

It is for these reasons that I support this decision. It is not because I am pro-choice or pro-life. Those thoughts don’t even enter into my point of view on this. Whatever I may think about abortion is irrelevant to my thoughts about this decision.

What I want is a President that obeys the laws Congress passes.

I want Congress to fight the political battles, and at the end of the day, to pass laws.

And I want a SC that rules on those laws, unmoved by personal bias, staying within their role, using the words of the Constitution as their highest authority.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
Our human rights are universal and inalienable from the moment we're born. These rights are also indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. That is, the deprivation of one person's right can adversely affect the rights of others. But these basic human rights can only be guaranteed or protected, if they are protected by statute(law).
I know you didn’t do it intentionally, but what you wrote goes right to the crux of the abortion debate.

The only difference between what you wrote and what a pro-lifer would write is “from the moment we’re born.” You and a pro-lifer would agree on everything else that you wrote there. The pro-lifer thinks those basic human rights begin at some point before we’re born. Other than that, there would be no debate about abortion. If we all agreed that an unborn is not a human being with any basic human rights until it is born, or, on the other hand, if we all agreed that an unborn is a human being possessing basic human rights, there would be no abortion debate. But the reality is that the two sides don’t agree, and they probably never will.

In my opinion, the SC cannot decide that question because it is not a scientific question; it is a purely subjective question. And, of course, the Constitution doesn’t address it.

So again, we can address the question with a constitutional amendment, or federal and state legislatures can address it. A constitutional amendment would pretty much settle the issue permanently, while legislation could be repealed and changed over time as the political complexion of the people and the government changes. Either way, the responsibility for these decisions is going back to where it belongs.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
..

If the draft position becomes the Majority Decision.....Abortion will probably still be legal, but not be a Right, & how abortion is implemented, if at all, will be determined by individual State legislation. There are at least 19 States that are set to ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, after which getting &/or providing an abortion would be a felony, punishable by imprisonment determined by State Law.



..
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I’ll try to answer you one piece at a time. I’m working off an iPhone.

- I have actually read opinions by liberal academics who say that the words of the Constitution may be completely ignored as we see fit. A simple google search can bring up such articles. Fortunately, I don’t think the majority of Americans agree with that. We are either governed by the rule of law or we aren’t, and I choose to abide by the words of our Constitution. If we want to change it, there is a process for that. It doesn’t matter if one is liberal or conservative; abiding by those words protects us all.

- I agree with you that the role of the SC is to interpret the Constitution. The key words there are “the Constitution.” All 3 branches of the government are constrained by the law. The SC is constrained by the Constitution itself. What I mean by that is that, in essence, the SC may only rule on the constitutionality of a law or an action. But if the Constitution is silent on something, it is not the role of the SC to interpret that issue by effectively creating a law or a right. Instead, it is the role of the Legislative branch to do that.

The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech. Therefore, the SC may rule on issues revolving around speech.

The 4th Amendment says that we shall be secure from unreasonable searches. Therefore, the SC may rule on what is an “unreasonable” search.

The 2nd Amendment concerns firearms. Therefore, the SC may rule on the nuances of the right to bear arms.

Etc, etc, etc …

But the Constitution is silent on abortion, medical privacy, or when or if an unborn may be deemed to be a human being. Therefore, in my opinion, the SC lacks the standing to make rulings on the issue.
That is what this latest ruling is saying. The SC is saying that the Roe v Wade decision crossed the line between interpreting the Constitution and creating a right. Creating a right is the purview of the Legislative branch, not the purview of the Judicial branch. And for that reason, they are saying that the Roe decision was flawed - an encroachment upon the role of the Legislative branch, an overreach by the Judicial branch.

The pro-choice side is already planning to introduce legislation at the federal level. This is where that debate belongs. The other solution is a constitutional amendment.

I think it is very important that the SC not be a political body. Our politics should be played out by our elected representatives. But the Judiciary should be above politics, above the desires and biases of themselves or the public. And they should be loyal only to the Constitution, and nothing else. And, they should always act with a strict clarity as to what their role is and then making sure they are staying within the limits of that role.

It is for these reasons that I support this decision. It is not because I am pro-choice or pro-life. Those thoughts don’t even enter into my point of view on this. Whatever I may think about abortion is irrelevant to my thoughts about this decision.

What I want is a President that obeys the laws Congress passes.

I want Congress to fight the political battles, and at the end of the day, to pass laws.

And I want a SC that rules on those laws, unmoved by personal bias, staying within their role, using the words of the Constitution as their highest authority.
It is ironic that you speak loudly on the dangers of a nation that does not follow the rule of law. Yet you are silent to the fact, that Texas and Mississippi did exactly that. They ignored the intent, letter, and spirit of past Constitutional rulings, as well as the existing laws governing abortions. And in trying to circumvent these laws, they incurred a SC hearing. This seems to have worked out well for them. We are truly a nation governed by laws. But these are statute laws, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS! Remember, the SC only hears cases that have already been decided in the highest courts. Its role is to interpret the constitutional relevance/limitations of these cases. And, by understanding the intent, purpose, and spirit of the framers, can rule on the case's explicit/implicit constitutional relevance. Not to make a cop-out ruling and pass the buck over to the States. Which is what this party-biased court has done.

If some states allow free abortions, and others prohibits abortions, then the freedom to have an abortion will be determined by where you are born/live. Some Americans will have this freedom, and others will be denied it. Of no fault of their own. So having an abortion in California is okay, but not in Mississippi. We are dividing a nation again, just like we did over slavery(or Trump). Eventually, I can see women being arrested for having illegal abortions. And charged with fetal manslaughter. Is this the divided nation you want? A nation where your freedoms are determined by what state you live in? And, this is just one issue. There will be more.

The questions have always been simple. Do women have an inalienable right/freedom to control their own reproductive system? Do women have the right/freedom to choose to complete or terminate their own pregnancy? Is the right to a safe abortion a personal/privacy issue, protected under the privacy and due process clauses in the Constitution? Finally, do governments have the right to force pregnant mothers to bear and raise children they don't want?

Also, did the US ever descended into anarchy, when its citizenry opposed and ignored slavery, prohibition, civil/equal rights, voting, segregation, and other outdated laws? Clearly, history has shown us that social anarchy is not the end-result of people ignoring or disobeying laws. Remember, before laws were changed people first disobeyed them. Thank God, the framers guaranteed all citizens their 5 basic rights/freedoms to dissent.


That is what this latest ruling is saying. The SC is saying that the Roe v Wade decision crossed the line between interpreting the Constitution and creating a right. Creating a right is the purview of the Legislative branch, not the purview of the Judicial branch. And for that reason, they are saying that the Roe decision was flawed - an encroachment upon the role of the Legislative branch, an overreach by the Judicial branch.
I definitely disagree. I don't see any flaws in the Roe decision. What flaws in the Roe decision are you talking about? Also, this was only a ruling/interpretation the laws constitutionality. So, how is there any encroachment, or judicial overreach into the legislative branch of government? That would be like saying that all appellate court's decisions are an overreach. Or, are encroaching into the legislative branch.
 

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
Our laws do change with the times by Congress and by state legislatures. The Constitution may be changed by the process of amendment. The last time it was amended was in 1992. It was the 27th Amendment which deals with congressional pay.

I have about half a dozen amendments to the Constitution that I wish for. There really isn’t a lot of popular pressure for amendments coming from the public which is why we don’t get them more often. The other reason is that it would be difficult to get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything. Nevertheless, it can be done.
And that is the problem. Waiting for the public to get so worked up on an issue that the majority actively campaign for it means you're always going to be way behind the eight ball. Especially these days where the slightest change becomes political fodder for the extremists on both sides of politics. I think the law should be proactive and adapt quickly to keep up with changes in society. Not reactive.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
......I think the law should be proactive and adapt quickly to keep up with changes in society. Not reactive.
Well, if you were an American Citizen you could petition the Congress to present an amendment to 'The Law of the Land'.....the American Constitution.....& start the ball rolling to make it so. Then & only then can your thoughts become factual.....until then America will honor OUR Law as it is.......The United States Constitution......And if 'We the People' see fit to amend it, We Will as We the People always have for over 220 Years......





We the People -- Three Words that Changed the World!


..
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Well, if you were an American Citizen you could petition the Congress to present an amendment to 'The Law of the Land'.....the American Constitution.....& start the ball rolling to make it so. Then & only then can your thoughts become factual.....until then America will honor OUR Law as it is.......The United States Constitution......And if 'We the People' see fit to amend it, We Will as we always have for over 220 Years......

Is that what Texas and Mississippi did? Did they petition Congress to present an amendment to the Constitution? NO! Did they call for a Constitutional Convention to change the existing interpretation of the law. NO! They used their own taxpayers money to ignore/disregard this "Law of the land" you're talking about. TWICE!!! Then you tell people if they don't like it, they are the ones who can petition the government with their grievances. Sheer hypocrisy!! Those states should practice what you're trying to preach.

Clearly, you don't give a shit what the government needs to do to support your one-dimensional self-serving, and selfish belief. Or, how many people will suffer for your personal beliefs. In the States there will always be one law for the rich, powerful, and the privileged. And, another law for the rest. The way it has always been.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
States prohibit abortion—a woman has a miscarriage: what odds she will end up in prison for “procuring an abortion?” Bet this will happen.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
And that is the problem. Waiting for the public to get so worked up on an issue that the majority actively campaign for it means you're always going to be way behind the eight ball. Especially these days where the slightest change becomes political fodder for the extremists on both sides of politics. I think the law should be proactive and adapt quickly to keep up with changes in society. Not reactive.
The real reason we don't amend our Constitution more often is that we don't have political leaders who will lead. There are a number of amendments that could make us better, but that effort has to be led.

Amendments I wish for:

- Term limits on members of Congress
- A Balanced Budget Amendment
- A repeal of the 17th Amendment. This would return the selection of U.S. Senators to a vote by members of state legislatures.
- That monetary political contributions are not protected speech under the 1st Amendment and may therefore be regulated by the laws of the states and Congress.
- That a President may not enter into military hostilities against a country or organization
without the consent of both Houses of Congress, except in the event of surprise attack or imminent attack.
 

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
It is ironic that you speak loudly on the dangers of a nation that does not follow the rule of law. Yet you are silent to the fact, that Texas and Mississippi did exactly that. They ignored the intent, letter, and spirit of past Constitutional rulings, as well as the existing laws governing abortions. And in trying to circumvent these laws, they incurred a SC hearing. This seems to have worked out well for them. We are truly a nation governed by laws. But these are statute laws, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS! Remember, the SC only hears cases that have already been decided in the highest courts. Its role is to interpret the constitutional relevance/limitations of these cases. And, by understanding the intent, purpose, and spirit of the framers, can rule on the case's explicit/implicit constitutional relevance. Not to make a cop-out ruling and pass the buck over to the States. Which is what this party-biased court has done.
The problem with the Roe decision is that the Court used a strained interpretation of the 14th Amendment as the justification for their decision.

The questions have always been simple.
Do women have an inalienable right/freedom to control their own reproductive system? Do women have the right/freedom to choose to complete or terminate their own pregnancy? Is the right to a safe abortion a personal/privacy issue, protected under the privacy and due process clauses in the Constitution? Finally, do governments have the right to force pregnant mothers to bear and raise children they don't want?
First of all, there is no "privacy clause" in the Constitution. The "right to privacy" as it pertains to abortion was invented by the Supreme Court in the Roe decision.

And no, it is not simple. You ask a lot of questions, but you left out the key question that is the crux of the whole abortion debate: When is an unborn a person? When is an unborn also entitled to the right of "life" or "liberty" under the 14th Amendment? This is what the whole abortion debate is about. Both sides of the argument agree that the wrongful taking of human life is murder. The disagreement comes in with the question of when is a person a person? You cannot ignore the one question that is central to the whole debate.

Everybody knows the science of fetal development. But when is that fetus "human life"? When is it a "person"? Do you want to tackle that question?

These are not questions that a Supreme Court can answer. Whatever my answer to that is, whatever your answer to that is, whatever a court's answer to that is, whatever anybody's answer to that is - is an opinion, nothing more. I don't believe anyone can answer that question, and so our only alternative is to legislate according to the will of the people. That legislation may allow unfettered, unconditional access to abortion, or it may have some restrictions, or it may be very restricted. But this is a question that we must leave to the people, through the laws of our elected representatives in the states and federal government.

I definitely disagree. I don't see any flaws in the Roe decision. What flaws in the Roe decision are you talking about? Also, this was only a ruling/interpretation the laws constitutionality. So, how is there any encroachment, or judicial overreach into the legislative branch of government? That would be like saying that all appellate court's decisions are an overreach. Or, are encroaching into the legislative branch.
It overreached because it legislated. It created a "right to privacy" using a very strained interpretation of the 14th Amendment (the due process and equal protection amendment). Creating rights is outside of the purview of the Supreme Court. And it didn't stop there. It went on to effectively legislate what laws a state may enact according to which trimester of pregnancy is the case. This again is not the role of the Supreme Court.

What seems very clear to me is that the 1973 Supreme Court wanted to craft abortion legislation, and so they did. And in order to gain a solid majority, they wrote in some compromises, very much like what legislators do - a little give and take. According to the Roe decision abortions may be somewhat regulated in the second trimester and prohibited by the states in the third trimester (except in cases where it is necessary for the life or health of the mother).

My problem with Roe is that wanting things to be a certain way should never be the reason why a Supreme Court Justice votes something up or down. The wants of those Justices should not matter in their decision-making. And just like the Executive and Legislative Branches, they have an obligation to stay within the lines of their role and purpose.

Again, my point of view has nothing to do with my personal feelings about abortion, either pro or con.

What I want is a government that works the way it was designed to work.

I want the President to execute the will of Congress.

I want the Congress to fight the political battles and legislate.

And I want the Supreme Court to be apolitical and to objectively test our laws against the words of our Constitution.

I don't want any branch punting their responsibility to another branch, and I don't want any branch encroaching on the powers of another branch.
 

greggerypeccary

Active member
Republicans are only "pro-life" up until the moment of birth.

After that, they couldn't care less about you.

"You want health insurance? Get lost, pal - we'll prioritise capital punishment over free and widely available health care every day of the week".

Repugnant Republicans are the scum of the Earth.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
.....Is that what Texas and Mississippi did? Did they petition Congress to present an amendment to the Constitution? ........Did they call for a Constitutional Convention to change the existing interpretation of the law......
They didn't have to.....they believed, as many do, the 1973 Roe decision was in error, & because of that their legislatures did exactly what it should do, legislate new law. If objected to, & litigated in lower appellate courts, then the Supreme Court could get involved. They did, & their decision on the Mississippi law is what is pending, which could effectively reverse Roe if they decide that the 1973 Court was in error.

IMHO, if that comes to pass they don't get away with just saying so, they will have to show how the 1973 Court erred, precisely.........& if they decide it erred in the 1973 Court's decision's entirety, or if just in parts crucial enough to negate key components to the 1973 Roe decision, so much so that the remainder can't remain to stand intact, they can call for a complete reversal.

Many across the Nation will surely disagree if that is the final outcome.....if Roe is reversed.......& their only recourse ( those that favor death over life) would be either to amend the Constitution to their liking, or wait.....as in this case......wait until another Supreme Court decides to take up this issue down the road.....5+,10+, 20+, 25+, 30+, 35+, 50+ years from now......on their behalf, & hopefully rule in their favor.

I don't, IMHO, believe that there will be enough support behind a pro-death Constitutional amendment.....Every proposed amendment must receive support from three-fourths of individual State Conventions or State Legislatures pending Referendums in most States. As born out by our Nation's history, it's incredibly difficult to get two thirds of both the House & Senate to agree on anything, or to get that many States, as required by the Constitution's Article V, to get agreement on a permanent change to the U.S. Constitution, but it has been done successfully 17 times since 1790. Since 1790 over 11,000 Constitutional Amendments have been offered for Congressional consideration, with 33 successfully passed on to the States for ratification. SEE

So, if that's the case, they will have to go all in on waiting until they have a Court that will decide in their favor as in 1973.


..
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
It overreached because it legislated. It created a "right to privacy" using a very strained interpretation of the 14th Amendment (the due process and equal protection amendment). Creating rights is outside of the purview of the Supreme Court. And it didn't stop there. It went on to effectively legislate what laws a state may enact according to which trimester of pregnancy is the case. This again is not the role of the Supreme Court.
Seth, the SC does not legislate anything or create rights. No matter how many times you keep trying to imply that it does. It is the role of the SC to interpret whether a state or federal law violates the Constitution(effectively or otherwise). If the laws are unconstitutional, then they can't be enforced. This is only about a woman's choice and a woman's privacy. States can certainly regulated the limitations regarding abortions. As it can with all other rights and freedoms. But these regulations can't prevent, impede, or make it impossible for a woman to have an abortion. This is what the Texas bill effectively does. This SC simply said that Abortion is not mentioned as a privacy right, therefore the 10th Amendment applies. NEXT! Is the right to exist written in the Constitution??

The problem with the Roe decision is that the Court used a strained interpretation of the 14th Amendment as the justification for their decision.
First of all, there is no "privacy clause" in the Constitution. The "right to privacy" as it pertains to abortion was invented by the Supreme Court in the Roe decision.
Do YOU really think that a woman's right to terminate her own pregnancy, is NOT a privacy or liberty issue? I seriously doubt if anything could be more private than pregnancy and abortion decisions. Without an example, I don't know what a "strained interpretation" of the 14th Amendment even means. There are 3 basic clauses that are mentioned in this amendment(citizenship, equal protection, and the privileges and immunities clauses). Which of these clauses is the subject of a strained interpretation and why? Please look at the first video about the 14th Amendment. It doesn't matter if there is no "privacy clause", or a "right to privacy" mentioned. It is clearly implicit in this reconstruction amendment. Also, what do you think the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments are all protecting(without saying it)?


And no, it is not simple. You ask a lot of questions, but you left out the key question that is the crux of the whole abortion debate: When is an unborn a person? When is an unborn also entitled to the right of "life" or "liberty" under the 14th Amendment? This is what the whole abortion debate is about. Both sides of the argument agree that the wrongful taking of human life is murder. The disagreement comes in with the question of when is a person a person? You cannot ignore the one question that is central to the whole debate.

Everybody knows the science of fetal development. But when is that fetus "human life"? When is it a "person"? Do you want to tackle that question?
When is the unborn a person? WHEN IT IS NO LONGER AN UNBORN!! When is an unborn entitled to the right of "life" or "liberty"? Also, when the unborn is born. Or, is at least a viable unborn. Since you have already labeled any answers as only an opinion, you are no longer looking for the truth. This is the very definition of confirmation bias.

No Seth, most people know very little about fetal development. If most people did understand the embryonic and fetal development cycles, abortion would never be an issue. Most people still think that a clump of foreign cells growing in the womb, is a mini-human with rights and a consciousness. A mini-human simply waiting to become a person.

Once you take away all the distorted/mischaracterized moral and religious connotations attached to the word abortion, these answers become very simple. From a biological perspective, the second the neonate(newborn) can live independent of an umbilical cord, it becomes a person. The second the neonate can feed itself, crap itself, breath for itself, defend itself, and interact with its environment, it becomes a person. This is not rocket science. In spite of all the metaphorical disinformation by fanatics. If you don't want an abortion, then don't have one!

What seems very clear to me is that the 1973 Supreme Court wanted to craft abortion legislation, and so they did. And in order to gain a solid majority, they wrote in some compromises, very much like what legislators do - a little give and take. According to the Roe decision abortions may be somewhat regulated in the second trimester and prohibited by the states in the third trimester (except in cases where it is necessary for the life or health of the mother).

My problem with Roe is that wanting things to be a certain way should never be the reason why a Supreme Court Justice votes something up or down. The wants of those Justices should not matter in their decision-making. And just like the Executive and Legislative Branches, they have an obligation to stay within the lines of their role and purpose.
I have no idea how you could know any of this to be a fact. This all seems like unfounded and unsupported speculation to me. The 9 Justices are all independent of each other. So exactly what form of legislation do they legislate among themselves? THEIR RULINGS ARE NOT LAW! Only the legislative branch makes legislation/bills. And, only the executive branch can sign legislation/bills into law. So, where is this encroachment that you're talking about?

When the Texas state government prohibited abortion when a heartbeat is detected, this effectively prevented women from having an abortions in the state. This state government even made anyone who aided and abetted anyone getting an abortion, a criminal guilty of a felony. This government even awarded any citizen $10K to enforce the bill for them. This legally allowed them to circumvent any legal ramifications of the bill. Which the court acknowledged but ignored. YES THEY VIOLATED THE LAW OPENLY!!

Again, my point of view has nothing to do with my personal feelings about abortion, either pro or con.
So what is your personal feelings about women having a right to choose to terminate their own pregnancy? Do you think that the State should decide this for them? Or, are you a, "too bad, so sad", kind of person?
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho 💉💉
Staff member
“Pro death” is emotional claptrap! The question is whether women can control their own body. The Texarse and Miss. decisions will affect only poor women who will mostly be women of color.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
“Pro death” is emotional claptrap! The question is whether women can control their own body. The Texarse and Miss. decisions will affect only poor women who will mostly be women of color.
Cest la vie

PS......The Texas matter isn't before the Supreme Court, & won't ever be if the Court decides in favor of Mississippi.....

The Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is presently before the Court, & seems to be the case that may overturn Roe, or at the very least, return all abortion matters back to the States where they belong....where they can be decided upon by the People....not the Feds, as per the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn't listed, it belongs to the States or to the People.


 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Captain Bullock
Staff member
Seth, the SC does not legislate anything or create rights. No matter how many times you keep trying to imply that it does. It is the role of the SC to interpret whether a state or federal law violates the Constitution(effectively or otherwise). If the laws are unconstitutional, then they can't be enforced.
Agreed. The SC does not legislate, nor may they effectively legislate under the guise of a ruling. Had there been a strong, unambiguous constitutional basis in the Roe case, the SC could have struck down the Texas law as being unconstitutional and left it at that. But instead, the 1973 SC asserted that the 14th Amendment provided for a heretofore unknown "right of privacy" (effectively legislating such a right), and it declared (effectively legislating) that abortions could not be restricted in the first trimester, could be somewhat regulated in the second trimester, and that abortions may be prohibited in the third trimester. With regard to the ruling on the third trimester, it seems to be clear that even that 1973 Court recognized the right to life of an unborn child at some point prior to birth, a fact that is often forgotten when people talk about the Roe case.


This is only about a woman's choice and a woman's privacy.
The abortion debate is not only about a woman's choice and a woman's privacy. It is also about the rights of an unborn. As I pointed out above, even the 1973 SC Roe decision recognized that. And, as I mentioned before, if everyone agreed on when that right to life begins, there would be no debate over abortion. The real question is not a woman's choice or her privacy. The real question, the crux of the whole debate, is when does an unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection? At conception? When it has a heartbeat? At the start of the 3rd trimester? When it is viable outside the womb? Or not until it is actually born? Intelligent people who know the science of fetal development can and do disagree on this question. At what point do we value the fetal entity as an equal to people who are already born? This is what the whole debate is about.

States can certainly regulated the limitations regarding abortions. As it can with all other rights and freedoms. But these regulations can't prevent, impede, or make it impossible for a woman to have an abortion.
Yes, they can under the Roe decision, after a point (the start of the third trimester).

Do YOU really think that a woman's right to terminate her own pregnancy, is NOT a privacy or liberty issue? I seriously doubt if anything could be more private than pregnancy and abortion decisions.
It really doesn't matter what I think. Let me explain why. Let's say you find out your wife is being unfaithful to you. So you decide how and when to murder her, and you do it. You end up getting prosecuted and going to trial. At trial, you argue that murdering your wife was a choice that you were entitled to make because it was your marriage and she was unfaithful, and that you have a right to privacy in your personal marital affairs. Now obviously, that defense won't work. Why? The answer is that your wife was a human being - a person - who was entitled to life. We can all agree on that. So your right to privacy and liberty to murder your wife is trumped by the fact that your wife was a person who was entitled to life.

We also all agree that at some point from conception to post-birth, a child is entitled to life, regardless of whether the mother agrees. The crux of the debate is when that entitlement to life begins.

So to answer your question directly, no. It is not strictly an issue of the privacy and liberty of the mother. The biggest issue - the entire crux of the debate - is when the unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection under the law.

Without an example, I don't know what a "strained interpretation" of the 14th Amendment even means. There are 3 basic clauses that are mentioned in this amendment(citizenship, equal protection, and the privileges and immunities clauses). Which of these clauses is the subject of a strained interpretation and why? Please look at the first video about the 14th Amendment. It doesn't matter if there is no "privacy clause", or a "right to privacy" mentioned. It is clearly implicit in this reconstruction amendment. Also, what do you think the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments are all protecting(without saying it)?
I think it does matter. When we start having our courts grant "implicit" rights, we are allowing them to effectively "legislate" rights. Perhaps the starkest example of why this must not be allowed was the argument that the slave owners used in the lead-up to the Civil War. They asserted that the efforts of the North to end slavery were an assault upon their property rights, as slaves were thought to be "property". The Dred Scott decision of 1857 bolstered that "implicit" right to own other human beings by deciding that people of African descent were not citizens of the U.S. and that they were not entitled to the protections and rights enumerated in the Constitution. Although nothing in the Constitution ever said that only people of the white race may be citizens of the U.S., the Supreme Court, in effect, legislated from the bench, creating white-only citizenship, and denying basic constitutional protections to people based upon race. This ruling didn't create rights, but instead, effectively legislated a denial of rights to a certain class of people. Unquestionably, this was a good example of judicial overreach, and it serves as an example of the perils of allowing 9 unelected people to effectively legislate our laws. It also serves as an example of why I prefer "originalist" judges over "activist" or "living document" judges.

When is the unborn a person? WHEN IT IS NO LONGER AN UNBORN!! When is an unborn entitled to the right of "life" or "liberty"? Also, when the unborn is born. Or, is at least a viable unborn.
Shell, which is it? No longer unborn, or a viable unborn?

Don't answer that. Whatever your answer would be doesn't matter. Here's the point:

That is the crux of the whole debate. When do the unborn have a right to life, liberty, and equal protection? That is the entire debate. And the answers to that are opinions. And those opinions run the entire gamut.

Since you have already labeled any answers as only an opinion, you are no longer looking for the truth. This is the very definition of confirmation bias.
There is no authoritative, undeniable, supreme truth that can answer that question. And since God Himself is not going to suddenly appear in person and make the call, we are left with our opinions, and we may vote, and we may legislate. That's as good as it gets. Is it perfect? No. Because "perfect" would mean that we all agree, and that is not going to happen - not ever.

So what is your personal feelings about women having a right to choose to terminate their own pregnancy? Do you think that the State should decide this for them? Or, are you a, "too bad, so sad", kind of person?
My opinions on that fall in the middle. I am opposed to banning all abortions, and I am opposed to aborting babies after a point.
 
Top