Roe vs Wade Overturned?

B

Ballel

no it is borat 2, but also watch Who Is America, if you havent same type stuff but making fun of both extreme sides of politics
I did
I watched all of that stuff
But my favourite is still this
When he starts going "throw the Jew down the well" I'm dying every time
 
B

Ballel

Reminder USA constitution don’t mention privacy rights.

Supreme court interpret privacy rights in 1923 case .

Founder fathers have negative view on homosexuality.

“It may come as a surprise that the Constitution of the United States does not specifically protect your right to privacy.”
https://www.findlaw.com/injury/tort...es/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html


Another good link : http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
And? What are you trying to say?
 

K!NG HARA$H!MA

Lower than trash
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
 
Person: I'm pro life
Me: Oh so you want Universal Healthcare, maternity leave, medication prices regulated, school meals, maternity leave, imigration and Vacination...
Person: No
Strawman Im pro life and support all these thing but even if not there a difference between literal infanticide and no universal healthcare
Post automatically merged:

Wondering how many of those women will use their gun to kill themselves after they were forced to give birth
It’s not being forced to give birth just be responsible for once and abstain or use a condom
 
B

Ballel

Strawman Im pro life and support all these thing but even if not there a difference between literal infanticide and no universal healthcare
Post automatically merged:


It’s not being forced to give birth just be responsible for once and abstain or use a condom
Dying a slow death bc I can't afford a doctor vs dying a quicker death before I'm born:wonderland:

I'd choose the latter
 

Adam 🍎

Pretty Boy
Strawman Im pro life and support all these thing but even if not there a difference between literal infanticide and no universal healthcare
So explain me the logic where you force women to give birth to children they in most cases can't properly raise because of economical-social aspects, yet you have 0 coverages to solve that, no maternity or at very best low maternity leave, you have no child benefits, you don't have healthcare, you don't have daycare, you don't have shit for that child once it is born

You are all for children being born no matter what but you have no support for them once they are born

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds and makes no sense?
 
This will be my only post about this issue. It's all more complex than this. But this is a basic summary.

And? What are you trying to say?
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" *in regards to Roe *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 *(anything deriving from a right to privacy)* can be done away with for a number of reasons (in this case because it *(Roe)* isn't mentioned). Since there is no mechanism to determine unstated rights (*SCOTUS has historically decided,* but the idea of these "shadow *of shadow* 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).

Anyway, when that poster talked about the right to privacy not existing, what they're saying is the basis for Roe doesn't exist, so it should have been overturned for that reason.

Edited some things in for clarity since I used a lot of "it"s. Edits within **. Too lazy to edit anymore, so this will simply have to suffice for a free lesson.
 
Last edited:
So explain me the logic where you force women to give birth to children they in most cases can't properly raise because of economical-social aspects, yet you have 0 coverages to solve that, no maternity or at very best low maternity leave, you have no child benefits, you don't have healthcare, you don't have daycare, you don't have shit for that child once it is born

You are all for children being born no matter what but you have no support for them once they are born

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds and makes no sense?
Can you read I literally I support most of these social programs in my post
 

K!NG HARA$H!MA

Lower than trash
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).
Too long
 
Top