@ChessChadChungus said in #2:
>
> Roe v Wade overturned
>
Want to explain why that's a good thing, chief?
>
> Roe v Wade overturned
>
Want to explain why that's a good thing, chief?
@Wattaguy_Study said in #11:
> Want to explain why that's a good thing, chief?
Well, the enforcement of it is not good. However, let's use common sense here. If a woman is pregnant eight months, she probably shouldn't have a baby. If a woman is one month pregnant, then?
So, the sticky point is how long. I have seen 12 weeks mentioned recently. However, none of that is mentioned in the constitution. If the Supreme Court is to rule without making new law, then it is up to the states. Again, another enforcement issue. I would say, state votes could be then enforced instead.
This is just one sign that we give government too much power. It's not the Supreme Court decision, but the enforcement afterwards and the reach. A person shouldn't have a blank slate to decide, and the state shouldn't have the same without vote from the people.
> Want to explain why that's a good thing, chief?
Well, the enforcement of it is not good. However, let's use common sense here. If a woman is pregnant eight months, she probably shouldn't have a baby. If a woman is one month pregnant, then?
So, the sticky point is how long. I have seen 12 weeks mentioned recently. However, none of that is mentioned in the constitution. If the Supreme Court is to rule without making new law, then it is up to the states. Again, another enforcement issue. I would say, state votes could be then enforced instead.
This is just one sign that we give government too much power. It's not the Supreme Court decision, but the enforcement afterwards and the reach. A person shouldn't have a blank slate to decide, and the state shouldn't have the same without vote from the people.
Not about Caruana, Not about Rapport, Not about Nakamura. Lucky Ian Championiactchi!
A major typo, but it won't let me edit. I meant to state, "If a woman is pregnant eight months, she probably shouldn't have an abortion."
I wish they would let us edit so we can correct our "blunders".
I wish they would let us edit so we can correct our "blunders".
@WorldRenownPatzer said in
>
> So, the sticky point is how long. I have seen 12 weeks mentioned recently. However, none of that is mentioned in the constitution. If the Supreme Court is to rule without making new law, then it is up to the states. Again, another enforcement issue. I would say, state votes could be then enforced instead.
Roe v. Wade was limited to the first trimester. Also how do you square your constitutional argument with the ninth amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not Be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The constitution says nothing about interracial marriage or school segregation specifically so by your reasoning both Brown v. Board of education and Loving v. Virginia should be overturned which would ironically invalidate Justice Thomas’marriage
>
> So, the sticky point is how long. I have seen 12 weeks mentioned recently. However, none of that is mentioned in the constitution. If the Supreme Court is to rule without making new law, then it is up to the states. Again, another enforcement issue. I would say, state votes could be then enforced instead.
Roe v. Wade was limited to the first trimester. Also how do you square your constitutional argument with the ninth amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not Be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The constitution says nothing about interracial marriage or school segregation specifically so by your reasoning both Brown v. Board of education and Loving v. Virginia should be overturned which would ironically invalidate Justice Thomas’marriage
@mwschmidt75 said in #15:
> @WorldRenownPatzer said in
>
>
> Roe v. Wade was limited to the first trimester. Also how do you square your constitutional argument with the ninth amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not Be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The constitution says nothing about interracial marriage or school segregation specifically so by your reasoning both Brown v. Board of education and Loving v. Virginia should be overturned which would ironically invalidate Justice Thomas’marriage
I don't know about those cases, but I looked up the 9th amendment and it sounds like the gist is "These rights are not whole and exclusive", that there are other rights not mentioned.
We don't need to go back to Madison's time to justify this. Metal is more attainable than it was, and there are threats today that were non-existent. Even as someone who would want more gun control, I can see the rights expanding with the second amendment. So, why not the 9th? If those cases you mention support what I am stating then we can move on. If not, give me the gist of those cases and the point in simple terms.
I am stating that we can't side with one side exclusively. We shouldn't be 100% for abortions (by choice) and we shouldn't be 100% against it. It needs to be evaluated case by case.
Not sure what conclusions you are assuming I am making, but let's spell out our thoughts.
> @WorldRenownPatzer said in
>
>
> Roe v. Wade was limited to the first trimester. Also how do you square your constitutional argument with the ninth amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not Be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The constitution says nothing about interracial marriage or school segregation specifically so by your reasoning both Brown v. Board of education and Loving v. Virginia should be overturned which would ironically invalidate Justice Thomas’marriage
I don't know about those cases, but I looked up the 9th amendment and it sounds like the gist is "These rights are not whole and exclusive", that there are other rights not mentioned.
We don't need to go back to Madison's time to justify this. Metal is more attainable than it was, and there are threats today that were non-existent. Even as someone who would want more gun control, I can see the rights expanding with the second amendment. So, why not the 9th? If those cases you mention support what I am stating then we can move on. If not, give me the gist of those cases and the point in simple terms.
I am stating that we can't side with one side exclusively. We shouldn't be 100% for abortions (by choice) and we shouldn't be 100% against it. It needs to be evaluated case by case.
Not sure what conclusions you are assuming I am making, but let's spell out our thoughts.
@WorldRenownPatzer said in #
>
> I am stating that we can't side with one side exclusively. We shouldn't be 100% for abortions (by choice) and we shouldn't be 100% against it. It needs to be evaluated case by case.
>
> Not sure what conclusions you are assuming I am making, but let's spell out our thoughts.
Your argument here seems to be in support of Roe. I’m wondering if you do not completely understand abortion after Roe( and subsequently after the Casey decision in 1992 that affirmed Roe but placed further limits on abortion). Under Roe abortion was legalized in all states up to 12 weeks but states could regulate it after that. Subsequent decisions validated a host of regulations for any abortion including multi day waiting periods and parental consent and consent from a biological father. Under the scheme prior to Dobbs it was almost impossible to get any abortion in states like Oklahoma and Wyoming. After Dobbs it will be impossible for women to get abortions in at least 13 states and most of those states are moving to criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion. This seems more draconian than you seem to support. You also seem to be saying that if a right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it cannot be judicially recognized. That seems to fly in the face of the Ninth amendment. The cases I cited, Brown which outlawed school segregation and Loving which outlawed laws preventing interracacial marriage both found the existence of rights that are not explicit in the Constitution.
>
> I am stating that we can't side with one side exclusively. We shouldn't be 100% for abortions (by choice) and we shouldn't be 100% against it. It needs to be evaluated case by case.
>
> Not sure what conclusions you are assuming I am making, but let's spell out our thoughts.
Your argument here seems to be in support of Roe. I’m wondering if you do not completely understand abortion after Roe( and subsequently after the Casey decision in 1992 that affirmed Roe but placed further limits on abortion). Under Roe abortion was legalized in all states up to 12 weeks but states could regulate it after that. Subsequent decisions validated a host of regulations for any abortion including multi day waiting periods and parental consent and consent from a biological father. Under the scheme prior to Dobbs it was almost impossible to get any abortion in states like Oklahoma and Wyoming. After Dobbs it will be impossible for women to get abortions in at least 13 states and most of those states are moving to criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion. This seems more draconian than you seem to support. You also seem to be saying that if a right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it cannot be judicially recognized. That seems to fly in the face of the Ninth amendment. The cases I cited, Brown which outlawed school segregation and Loving which outlawed laws preventing interracacial marriage both found the existence of rights that are not explicit in the Constitution.
@mwschmidt75 said in #17:
> @WorldRenownPatzer said in #
>
>
> Your argument here seems to be in support of Roe. I’m wondering if you do not completely understand abortion after Roe( and subsequently after the Casey decision in 1992 that affirmed Roe but placed further limits on abortion). Under Roe abortion was legalized in all states up to 12 weeks but states could regulate it after that. Subsequent decisions validated a host of regulations for any abortion including multi day waiting periods and parental consent and consent from a biological father. Under the scheme prior to Dobbs it was almost impossible to get any abortion in states like Oklahoma and Wyoming. After Dobbs it will be impossible for women to get abortions in at least 13 states and most of those states are moving to criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion. This seems more draconian than you seem to support. You also seem to be saying that if a right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it cannot be judicially recognized. That seems to fly in the face of the Ninth amendment. The cases I cited, Brown which outlawed school segregation and Loving which outlawed laws preventing interracacial marriage both found the existence of rights that are not explicit in the Constitution.
"You also seem to be saying that if a right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it cannot be judicially recognized. "
No, I stated the opposite. I stated we don't need to go back to Madison's time to support the 9th today. I cited the second amendment because I feel it is an easier debate. We can see a bullet, we can't see a baby until it's too late. You are mistaken about this.
Everything before was pretty much correct, other than saying I support Roe when you then listed things about me that go the other way.
I feel I understand Roe, I just don't agree with how we execute justice afterwards. I am against new presidents signing bills as soon as they get sworn in. I would like the people to vote on these bills. I am against congress possibly making laws to force Roe decisions on the country.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mentioned two justices lied under oath, and if it is the lie by itself, then I agree with her. If it is because they voted for anti-abortion, then this is a third thing I don't like about how we execute justice after electing someone.
If we want balance of power, we the people need to take more action than passing the buck and voting. Oh that person will solve everything for us. This is the part of AOC's message that she is lacking. What difference does it make what they did under oath? What matters is if you are pro-choice, which would you prefer, a lying person or the right to have an abortion?
This is where her head should be, but she's playing technicalities which get in the way. This is something Ilhan Omar mentioned, that other issues are coming up which are blocking the main objective. The anti-abortionists are taking a different route, and having 13 states when in history we had 13 colonies is no coincidence to me.
Not saying I like it, but at some point we have to stop self-segregating ourselves. Stop having Asians only photos of them protesting hate crimes, stop having the LGBT groups, blacks, etc... sticking to only their "own" group.
At some point, to fight fire with fire, you are going to have mix it up. The anti-abortionists are doing this. They even support a New York gangsta for president. Funny enough, his wife is not from "MERICA!!".
> @WorldRenownPatzer said in #
>
>
> Your argument here seems to be in support of Roe. I’m wondering if you do not completely understand abortion after Roe( and subsequently after the Casey decision in 1992 that affirmed Roe but placed further limits on abortion). Under Roe abortion was legalized in all states up to 12 weeks but states could regulate it after that. Subsequent decisions validated a host of regulations for any abortion including multi day waiting periods and parental consent and consent from a biological father. Under the scheme prior to Dobbs it was almost impossible to get any abortion in states like Oklahoma and Wyoming. After Dobbs it will be impossible for women to get abortions in at least 13 states and most of those states are moving to criminalize crossing state lines for an abortion. This seems more draconian than you seem to support. You also seem to be saying that if a right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it cannot be judicially recognized. That seems to fly in the face of the Ninth amendment. The cases I cited, Brown which outlawed school segregation and Loving which outlawed laws preventing interracacial marriage both found the existence of rights that are not explicit in the Constitution.
"You also seem to be saying that if a right is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution that it cannot be judicially recognized. "
No, I stated the opposite. I stated we don't need to go back to Madison's time to support the 9th today. I cited the second amendment because I feel it is an easier debate. We can see a bullet, we can't see a baby until it's too late. You are mistaken about this.
Everything before was pretty much correct, other than saying I support Roe when you then listed things about me that go the other way.
I feel I understand Roe, I just don't agree with how we execute justice afterwards. I am against new presidents signing bills as soon as they get sworn in. I would like the people to vote on these bills. I am against congress possibly making laws to force Roe decisions on the country.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mentioned two justices lied under oath, and if it is the lie by itself, then I agree with her. If it is because they voted for anti-abortion, then this is a third thing I don't like about how we execute justice after electing someone.
If we want balance of power, we the people need to take more action than passing the buck and voting. Oh that person will solve everything for us. This is the part of AOC's message that she is lacking. What difference does it make what they did under oath? What matters is if you are pro-choice, which would you prefer, a lying person or the right to have an abortion?
This is where her head should be, but she's playing technicalities which get in the way. This is something Ilhan Omar mentioned, that other issues are coming up which are blocking the main objective. The anti-abortionists are taking a different route, and having 13 states when in history we had 13 colonies is no coincidence to me.
Not saying I like it, but at some point we have to stop self-segregating ourselves. Stop having Asians only photos of them protesting hate crimes, stop having the LGBT groups, blacks, etc... sticking to only their "own" group.
At some point, to fight fire with fire, you are going to have mix it up. The anti-abortionists are doing this. They even support a New York gangsta for president. Funny enough, his wife is not from "MERICA!!".
Far too much in that post for me to unpack. I guess we should agree to disagree on the Dobbs decision.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.