Roe V Wade overturned!

Precious Roy wrote:

wazzu1452 wrote:

At the time of the 14th Amendment abortion was criminalized in every single state. So, by definition, it provided ZERO abortion rights or right to "privacy".

5 unelected liberal judges in black robes invented abortion rights out of thin air.

This was always a state issue.

Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.

The right to privacy comes from the judicial interpretation of the 14th amendments prohibition on a state law that denies someone "life, liberty or property without due process of law." Since the 1920s, the courts have interpreted "liberty" to include a right to privacy. So, it is a bit interesting after right wingers have been shouting about "liberty" whenever they are asked to where a mask before going into a nursing home or cancer ward are now saying that "liberty" in the constitution is just surplusage (i.e. extra words that have no legal weight).

Judge Alito's claim that "liberty" should be defined by reference to historical constitutional standards is pretty amazing in that historical constitutional standards include limiting suffrage to white male property owners, women being considered chattel, black people being chattel slaves, raping your wife is legal, putting people in jail for interracial marriage, and so on. And LLCs did not exist at the time of the framers. So, how can they have a constitutional right to free speech by giving to political campaigns?

Roe is being reversed because the composition of the court changed not because Roe has no legal foundation. Roe is the end of nearly fifty years of supreme court cases on the right to privacy under the 14th amendment. This marks the end of stare decisis at the supreme court. The court's opinions are only as good as long as the court is packed to one side ideologically. As soon as that changes, the court will reverse itself.

hunter wheres the blow wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

I'm trying to help you understand this:

If my kid dies (god forbid) from natural causes at age five, do you expect me to have more, less or the same emotion compared to if my child stillborn, compared to if they're miscarried late in the pregnancy, compared to if an embryo is ejected two weeks into gestation?

In all the above scenarios, it was a natural cause involved, without an external force at hand. I don't think most people feel the same about all these different scenarios. Maybe you do.

Thanks for explaining my points better than I do. Almost all people would agree that a 5 year old dying of natural causes is a tragedy. Almost no people think that a fertilized egg that doesn’t attach to the uterus and is miscarried is an equivalent tragedy. Maybe we’re all psychopaths?

best bet wrote:

Old Oregonian wrote:

This is very suspicious. A leaked draft is unprecedented. Very interested in how this happened.

The best bets are that it was intentionally released by one of the extremist conservatives on the SCOTUS. Alito himself is person of interest #1. Why would he do such a thing? To lock his draft opinion in place as he wrote it. SCOTUS decision are reviewed by every justice who request edits made to the draft text. That is how it works. Releasing it as it was drafted stops other justices from getting edits made. If any edits are made it becomes obvious what changes were made.

The correct decision in a case like this to completely drop the matter from any further consideration by the SCOTUS. They simple cancel their consideration of reviewing the case before them, and tell the parties to go back to the drawing board ... meaning try another approach to overturn Roe v Wade, and do not submit the same case, rewritten, because that has been compromised and will not be considered by the court.

Wise Old Man wrote:

China Joe wrote:

1) Interesting question, but depending on how they were discarded, I don't think that would be equivalent to intentionally terminating a growing person. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could create a system to minimize this from occurring.

2) Again, what we're talking about when it comes to abortion is intentionally ending a life. If you choose not to give someone medical care, while not morally ideal, is not the same as intentionally killing them. If you don't do the transplant and the person dies of natural causes, that is a natural failure of their own body and not the fault of another person.

Ok, got the distinction with regard to #2. However, discarding the embryos would be intentionally killing a life, no? How about the morning after pill? How about IUDs? Mostly the latter prevents fertilization, but they also prevent post fertilization implantation, thereby ending a life. It seems that no matter how you slice it, there are circumstances in which “ending a life” in the area of reproduction is felt by all of except all of those holding the most extreme position to be acceptable or at least not something they feel the state should regulate. Once people are willing to set the line someplace, then it’s a matter of debate about where to set the line. I do agree that this is a matter better decided by legislatures, but I’m very concerned about state by state difference and an unfair and inequitable application of the law across the country. Such foundational laws regarding “life and death” should not vary based on where you live or your status in society. Regardless of whether you feel the death penalty is just or not, the biggest problem is the unequal application and this is the same situation with abortion law. That’s intolerable.

GivingItMyAll wrote:

dopedgills15 wrote:questions for abortion supporters in this thread.

at what point in a pregnancy is abortion WRONG and why?

Is 1 milisecond before it exits the birth canal and is born ok?

while in the birth canal?

right before labor pains?

whats your standard?

If the child is born 3 months premature and I intended on getting a late term abortion but couldn't perform in time can I "abort" the child during the delivery?

Firstly- few are "abortion supporters". We much prefer "pro-choice". It's a woman's body, and she has a right to choose to develop that embryo or not.

At what point? Probably somewhere around viability. I'm not an expert here- but 26 weeks or thereabouts? If you wanted to argue a different number 24 weeks? 20 weeks- I'd entertain those. I think my views are pretty typical of the majority of Americans... and the world. Even in highly religious/Christian countries like Mexico, Ireland.