Roe vs Wade Repercussions

Dant01

Well-known member
.
The US Supreme Court's decision didn't outlaw abortions. It simply revealed that
abortions are not a true Constitutional right nor have they ever been a true
Constitutional right. The 1972 Court overstepped its bounds by associating
abortions with the right to privacy when there is no right to privacy in the US
Constitution.

States now have the authority to define their own abortion laws; which is where
abortion controls were supposed to be centralized in the first place in accord with
the Tenth Amendment; which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

_
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
.
The US Supreme Court's decision didn't outlaw abortions. It simply revealed that
abortions are not a true Constitutional right nor have they ever been a true
Constitutional right. The 1972 Court overstepped its bounds by associating
abortions with the right to privacy when there is no right to privacy in the US
Constitution.

States now have the authority to define their own abortion laws; which is where
abortion controls were supposed to be centralized in the first place in accord with
the Tenth Amendment; which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

_
I have never seen the pro-deathers mention the plaintiff in RvW lied under oath

She admitted it later
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
.
The US Supreme Court's decision didn't outlaw abortions. It simply revealed that
abortions are not a true Constitutional right nor have they ever been a true
Constitutional right. The 1972 Court overstepped its bounds by associating
abortions with the right to privacy when there is no right to privacy in the US
Constitution.

States now have the authority to define their own abortion laws; which is where
abortion controls were supposed to be centralized in the first place in accord with
the Tenth Amendment; which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

_
I could be wrong, but I always thought it boiled down to a private property issue. They're always yelling, "my body, my choice" They're essentially claiming that the human being inside their body is their private property to do with as they please which is essentially no different than the issue of slavery.

It's disturbing to see people who are adamantly opposed to the citizenry electing representatives to vote for or against abortion in their respective states while simultaneously not only opting for unelected judges to decide, but if those same judges make a ruling they don't agree with, then they should be vilified, demonized, attacked, and killed if necessary.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
.
The US Supreme Court's decision didn't outlaw abortions. It simply revealed that
abortions are not a true Constitutional right nor have they ever been a true
Constitutional right. The 1972 Court overstepped its bounds by associating
abortions with the right to privacy when there is no right to privacy in the US
Constitution.

States now have the authority to define their own abortion laws; which is where
abortion controls were supposed to be centralized in the first place in accord with
the Tenth Amendment; which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

_
And yet abortion supporters are still melting down as if the world has come to an end.

Yes, how horrible that women in some states may no longer be allowed to murder their pre-born offspring.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
I could be wrong, but I always thought it boiled down to a private property issue. They're always yelling, "my body, my choice" They're essentially claiming that the human being inside their body is their private property to do with as they please which is essentially no different than the issue of slavery.

It's disturbing to see people who are adamantly opposed to the citizenry electing representatives to vote for or against abortion in their respective states while simultaneously not only opting for unelected judges to decide, but if those same judges make a ruling they don't agree with, then they should be vilified, demonized, attacked, and killed if necessary.
Note that for abortion supporters, for whatever reason, bodily sovereignty extends ONLY to the right to murder your pre-born child.

Abortion supporters, for example, have no problem mandating that people take experimental vaccines. So when it comes to one's immune system, one does not have bodily sovereignty.

It seems to me that for this reason---abortion supporters are a joke. They arbitrarily pick and choose when concepts like bodily sovereignty apply. If abortion supporters are going to maintain that women get to murder their pre-born offspring becasue of bodily sovereignty, then they must reject vaccine mandates based on the exact same reasoning. If women have sovereignty over their wombs, then everyone has sovereignty over their immune systems.

The right to bodily autonomy cannot be turned on and off like a faucet--when convenient for abortion supporters.
 

Nedsk

Well-known member
.
The US Supreme Court's decision didn't outlaw abortions. It simply revealed that
abortions are not a true Constitutional right nor have they ever been a true
Constitutional right. The 1972 Court overstepped its bounds by associating
abortions with the right to privacy when there is no right to privacy in the US
Constitution.

States now have the authority to define their own abortion laws; which is where
abortion controls were supposed to be centralized in the first place in accord with
the Tenth Amendment; which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

_
The SC partly because they had to regain some semblance of credibility. You correctly point out that they created a right where no right exists. Roe was a horrible legal decision on par with Plessy.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Note that for abortion supporters, for whatever reason, bodily sovereignty extends ONLY to the right to murder your pre-born child.

Abortion supporters, for example, have no problem mandating that people take experimental vaccines. So when it comes to one's immune system, one does not have bodily sovereignty.

It seems to me that for this reason---abortion supporters are a joke. They arbitrarily pick and choose when concepts like bodily sovereignty apply. If abortion supporters are going to maintain that women get to murder their pre-born offspring becasue of bodily sovereignty, then they must reject vaccine mandates based on the exact same reasoning. If women have sovereignty over their wombs, then everyone has sovereignty over their immune systems.

The right to bodily autonomy cannot be turned on and off like a faucet--when convenient for abortion supporters.
Even more damning is the fact that their favorite argument for mandating that everyone be vaxxed is that it protects those around you from infection which is not only false, but documented by the CDC, FDA, NIH, and the Pharmaceutical companies. Moreover, those who are vaxxed are contagious and infecting everyone around them for weeks at a time. They're guilty of exactly what they're falsely accusing everyone else of doing.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Even more damning is the fact that their favorite argument for mandating that everyone be vaxxed is that it protects those around you from infection which is not only false, but documented by the CDC, FDA, NIH, and the Pharmaceutical companies. Moreover, those who are vaxxed are contagious and infecting everyone around them for weeks at a time. They're guilty of exactly what they're falsely accusing everyone else of doing.
Well said. The levels of viral load been shown to be the same whether vavcinated or not
 

mikeT

Well-known member
Even more damning is the fact that their favorite argument for mandating that everyone be vaxxed is that it protects those around you from infection
You're not going to be able to find anyone making this "favorite argument", because by-and-large, few people have ever made it.

MASKS protect the people around the mask wearer. The vaccine keeps people from dying or being hospitalized, and when the population is fully vaxxed, it keeps the rate of mutation down (re. herd immunity).

It's very interesting that after 3 years of the pandemic, people like you are still ignorant of the details and associated issues.
 

BMS

Well-known member
You're not going to be able to find anyone making this "favorite argument", because by-and-large, few people have ever made it.

MASKS protect the people around the mask wearer. The vaccine keeps people from dying or being hospitalized, and when the population is fully vaxxed, it keeps the rate of mutation down (re. herd immunity).

It's very interesting that after 3 years of the pandemic, people like you are still ignorant of the details and associated issues.
Actually that is one of the problems. The vaccine is protection against dying for the vast majority but doesnt stop people getting covid and the viral load is just as high. Masks and hand sanitisers help but dont fully protect people.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
.
The US Supreme Court's decision didn't outlaw abortions. It simply revealed that
abortions are not a true Constitutional right nor have they ever been a true
Constitutional right. The 1972 Court overstepped its bounds by associating
abortions with the right to privacy when there is no right to privacy in the US
Constitution.

States now have the authority to define their own abortion laws; which is where
abortion controls were supposed to be centralized in the first place in accord with
the Tenth Amendment; which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

_
Well...the US Supreme Court's decision didn't "reveal" anything. It showed that this particular court's opinion is that abortion is not a Constitutional right. Other courts' opinions have differed in the past; they way well differ in the future, and then the right (which they would state is in the Constitution) might again be established.

The 1972 court didn't overstep anything; it did precisely what it was supposed to, which was to decide on the constitutionality of issues. Its opinion differs with other courts including today's. Just as today's court's opinion on that and other issues differs from (and will continue to differ from) other courts' opinions.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution says; it matters what the Supreme Court determines it means. That's the Supreme Court's job. That it sometimes makes decisions that you (or I, or that bloke over there) think are wrong doesn't change that, nor does it make those decisions wrong; it just means they differ from yours.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
And yet abortion supporters are still melting down as if the world has come to an end.
In fact (rather than in somebody's fantasy world), supporters of women's right to abort are angry about the right to have control over what happens in and to their bodies be ruled to be not a Constitutional right.
Yes, how horrible that women in some states may no longer be allowed to murder their pre-born offspring.
How horrible that the US Constitution doesn't recognise the right of women to determine what happens with, to and in their own bodies.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I could be wrong, but I always thought it boiled down to a private property issue. They're always yelling, "my body, my choice" They're essentially claiming that the human being inside their body is their private property to do with as they please which is essentially no different than the issue of slavery.

It's disturbing to see people who are adamantly opposed to the citizenry electing representatives to vote for or against abortion in their respective states while simultaneously not only opting for unelected judges to decide, but if those same judges make a ruling they don't agree with, then they should be vilified, demonized, attacked, and killed if necessary.
The word was privacy.

In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied the core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
You're not going to be able to find anyone making this "favorite argument", because by-and-large, few people have ever made it.

MASKS protect the people around the mask wearer. The vaccine keeps people from dying or being hospitalized, and when the population is fully vaxxed, it keeps the rate of mutation down (re. herd immunity).
It is not a vaccine/
Fully jabbed people still died.


It's very interesting that after 3 years of the pandemic, people like you are still ignorant of the details and associated issues.
Masks don't work. Fake news is important to fauchee sheeple.

I have worn a mask in surgery 10,000 hours more than you and fauchee combined.

Masks don't block odors. The virus is same size as particulate matter that stinks up the room after a perforated gangrenous bowel obstruction.

It's people like you are still ignorant and discredited medical outsiders.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
The word was privacy.
Not necessarily in the mind of the progressive left which is what I was explicitly referring to. They couldn't really care less what the law says, or how a court interprets the law if it doesn't align with their views.
In the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court applied the core constitutional principle of privacy and liberty to a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe, the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy includes a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion.
A distinction with little to no effective difference. The left is adamantly out shouting "My body, my choice!" Which is no different than their ancestors who also claimed that their slaves were their private property to do so with as they wished.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Well...the US Supreme Court's decision didn't "reveal" anything. It showed that this particular court's opinion is that abortion is not a Constitutional right. Other courts' opinions have differed in the past; they way well differ in the future, and then the right (which they would state is in the Constitution) might again be established.

The 1972 court didn't overstep anything; it did precisely what it was supposed to, which was to decide on the constitutionality of issues. Its opinion differs with other courts including today's. Just as today's court's opinion on that and other issues differs from (and will continue to differ from) other courts' opinions.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution says; it matters what the Supreme Court determines it means. That's the Supreme Court's job. That it sometimes makes decisions that you (or I, or that bloke over there) think are wrong doesn't change that, nor does it make those decisions wrong; it just means they differ from yours.
IOW, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says; it matters what we want it to say. The job of judges should be to interpret the law not make up their own. That's why we vote legislators in for that are responsible to their voters. The current SCOTUS undid what the previous court had no business in doing and that was legislating what didn't exist in the Constitution. The same goes for gay marriage which is next on the agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

BMS

Well-known member
Have I got this right? The Supreme Court introduced Roe v Wade and some have had to put up with it for years, but now it is overturned and others are not prepared to put up with it.
 

Cisco Qid

Active member
Have I got this right? The Supreme Court introduced Roe v Wade and some have had to put up with it for years, but now it is overturned and others are not prepared to put up with it.
It is sicking, the minority wants it their way or else. Never mind the precedent that it sets (i.e a judiciary with unbridled power to interpret that law as they see fit) just as long as they get their way in the short run. If they were a majority they could vote in legislators and get the laws changed.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
You're not going to be able to find anyone making this "favorite argument", because by-and-large, few people have ever made it.
Prove it
MASKS protect the people around the mask wearer.
Not from a virus. Your claim is wrong.
The vaccine keeps people from dying or being hospitalized,
/another false claim. It is not a vaccine.

and when the population is fully vaxxed,
Also false.
it keeps the rate of mutation down (re. herd immunity).
You don't understand "herd immunity"
It's very interesting that after 3 years of the pandemic, people like you are still ignorant of the details and associated issues.

How do you think your talking points display a medical ignorance.
 

mikeT

Well-known member
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You reference this passage as if it was absolute. It is not, and has never been so.

There has always been a tension between federal and state legislation, because the size and diversity of this nation creates problems our founding fathers could not have foreseen.
 
Top