Roe vs Wade Overturned?

Adam 🍎

Adam 🍎

Pretty Boy
‎
#701
#701
King D WIldfire said:
Can you read I literally I support most of these social programs in my post
Click to expand...
You can support them all you want - but they aren't in place and have been cockblocked by same party that now overturned this case

Children you now forced to be born will have 0 coverage and support growing up, and take it from someone who worked with such kids and studied on college about it

Kids that grow without support in vast majority end up criminals or social cases - meaning your tax payer money will go to supporting them. Lucky ones which is very rare minority do make it. And then you have most unlucky ones that kill themselves by the age of 25 - Drugs, Crime, Poverty - pick a cause

If you gave a damn about kids you would first make sure you have those social policies in place FIRST before doing this stuff
 
B

Ballel

#702
#702
jinri said:
This will be my only post about this issue. It's all more complex than this. But this is a basic summary.


To simplify: the Constitution grants certain rights explicitly. It also mentions that there are rights that exist but are not written down in it. However, there is no way to determine what these rights are in the Constitution. It is possible to determine rights from other rights (that is to say that those rights are implicit, can be inferred), and the right to privacy (which isn't explicitly stated) is one of those inferred rights. The right to an abortion is often said to be in the "shadow" or "penumbra" of the right to privacy, which itself is in the "shadow" of other rights. The source for the "right to privacy" is the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment according to advocates.

This was the issue for Roe v Wade, and it's why many abortion advocates have said that it was on shaky ground, which is why people often pushed congress to do something (which they never did) for the last 50 years in order to protect the right to an abortion. The right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and because it's not explicitly mentioned then it can be done away with for a number of reasons (in this case because it isn't mentioned). Since there is no mechanism to determine unstated rights (and the idea of these "shadows rights" is somewhat controversial), the decision was to allow people in their states to determine whether to allow abortion or not rather than judges become "activists" and push for their own favored causes to become rights.

If anyone wants to compare this to gun rights, the difference is that it's currently accepted that the right for people to own guns is what the 2nd Amendment says. So guns are explicitly stated, and abortions are a "shadow" of a shadow right.

Some judges (notably Clarence Thomas) have an issue with substantive due process (read the link I put above), and some SCOTUS cases are reliant on it (gay marriage, anti-sodomy, and some other one he mentioned). This is why he called for those cases to be reviewed. It should be noted that he's really the only justice that advocates this position. It should be noted that no one else signed onto his concurrence where he advocated for looking over those cases, so no one else is calling for it (openly, I guess).
Click to expand...
Law is all about interpreting legal texts that were written by people who are no longer with us and discussing them to death.
I already knew this :kayneshrug:

It's really all just made up and only has the value people give to it.

There's a reason I never even considered studying law. At the end of the day they'll bend it according to their tastes or -in the case of people with overly high influence- won't be held reliable at all and the state/corporate covering up their crimes.
 
jinri

jinri

‎
#704
#704
K!NG HARA$H!MA said:
Too long
Click to expand...
:(

It's okay. I'm hungover. A little bit.

solis said:
Law is all about interpreting legal texts that were written by people who are no longer with us and discussing them to death.
I already knew this :kayneshrug:

It's really all just made up and only has the value people give to it.

There's a reason I never even considered studying law. At the end of the day they'll bend it according to their tastes or -in the case of people with overly high influence- won't be held reliable at all and the state/corporate covering up their crimes.
Click to expand...
I was just telling you why they brought up the right to privacy thing.

Maybe you knew but it might be good for others to know too.
 
Zenos7

Zenos7

‎
#706
#706
Weeman said:
The real question is when does it go from just a multicellular organism to a person though.

I doubt anyone but the most avid religious people would be against emergency pills, which might as well be day 1 abortions as they're designed to kill an already fertilized egg.

On the other hand, i doubt even the most avid pro-choicer would support a month 9 "abortion", since at that point it would literally just be giving birth early then killing a baby, so taking out all biases like religion, feminism, anti feminism or whatever, there clearly is a point of no return that people can somewhat tell.
In places where abortions are legal i believe the limit is about 24 weeks, but i'm not really qualified to actually tell when it crosses a certain "humane" treshold.

I do think it speaks a lot that so much people would put the rights of a barely developed 1-2 month embryo over the rights of the mother carrying it though.
Click to expand...
that fertilized egg is still a new human being. sure, in the very first developmental stages, but still a human being. and thats the point of the pro-life conservatives in most cases. the question as you put it is a philosophical one that not everyone cares about. for them its enough that there is a new human living being with unique dna, i.e. a human individual, i.e. a person.

if i have the motivation and time i will look up a poll about "when life begins", but iirc there were plenty "at birth" poll answers among pro-choice people, and here and there extreme abortions like you mentioned in month 9 are talked about. Im pretty sure i heard talks about post-birth-abortion before as well. @T-Pein™ ?
 
Ultra

Ultra

‎
#712
#712
King D WIldfire said:
Have you ever wondered why abortion disproportionately affects black women Its because modern abortion quite literally began as a form of eugenics against African Americans. You’re unirinically advocated for genovide
Click to expand...
You can't really equate abortions to genocide if it's completely voluntary. Regardless of historical precedent. And even then I think you're thinking of forced sterilizations rather than abortions.

And if people wanna weed themselves out of the genetic rat race well, I say let them.
 
The White Crane

The White Crane

‎
#718
#718
K!NG HARA$H!MA said:
Apparently, people are calling America
*Trumpistan* after the abortion ban .

Note: stan means land in Persian, many countries, state, and district included it due to Turco-Persian influence
Click to expand...
Odd choice. CMIIW, but the Sharia does not ban abortion, so renaming the US "Trumpistan" sounds stupid, especially if it is meant to mock Muslims, too, for whatever reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top