Roe V Wade
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
it was settled a long time ago. i dont see them revisiting or making any changes. people are just going crazy because of trump.
Because Republican politicians really don’t want it completely overturned. Abortion and guns are what wins for them.
The likelihood of the question "do we overturn all of RvW" is almost assuredly, 100% not going to happen.
The SCOTUS doesn't just wake up one day and decide that they're going to review the merits of past court cases and put it back to a vote. The only way the merits of RvW come up again is if legislation is passed at the State or Federal level that is then challenged, and has legal implications specifically within the RvW decision.
And even then, any SCOTUS decision would likely deal with parts of the court decision, at best.
Despite the hilarious hysterics coming from lefties these days, the Roberts Court has actually been very traditional conservative in the fact that they're rendering decisions that are very narrow in focus. They have not been attempting to yield opinions that are activist in nature.
Which to me is fine. I'm pragmatic so I doubt any wholesale overturn of RvW is going to happen. However, with this next SCOTUS pick, it makes it much more likely that we can finally pass laws that put in place much greater protections for unborn children, and have them upheld in legal challenges. Which is a huge step forward.
The SCOTUS doesn't just wake up one day and decide that they're going to review the merits of past court cases and put it back to a vote. The only way the merits of RvW come up again is if legislation is passed at the State or Federal level that is then challenged, and has legal implications specifically within the RvW decision.
And even then, any SCOTUS decision would likely deal with parts of the court decision, at best.
Despite the hilarious hysterics coming from lefties these days, the Roberts Court has actually been very traditional conservative in the fact that they're rendering decisions that are very narrow in focus. They have not been attempting to yield opinions that are activist in nature.
Which to me is fine. I'm pragmatic so I doubt any wholesale overturn of RvW is going to happen. However, with this next SCOTUS pick, it makes it much more likely that we can finally pass laws that put in place much greater protections for unborn children, and have them upheld in legal challenges. Which is a huge step forward.
Dred Scott was settled long before it was overturned. We just had a ruling last week that overturned one that had been around for 40 years.
Mississippi and Missouri recently passed legislation that sets up the court challenge to Roe v Wade. The lawsuits are being prepared as we speak.
The Roe decision was somewhat predicated on fetal viability outside the womb. At the time, that was generally considered to happen in the 3rd trimester. Today, it has been brought back to 21 weeks. Medical science has vastly improved since the early 70s, so I guess if we are to believe in the idea of the constitution being a living, breathing document then it stands to reaaon that Roe should be revisited and allowances for state laws restricting abortion should be pushed up several weeks.
I guess I have an issue with the “medical science” argument when most of the EU is privy to the same science and the threshold in many of those countries is 12 weeks. And they impose all kinds of tests, consultations, and some even have a cooling off period.
It’s a value judgement; at what point do you value the collection of cells as a human life. This has nothing to do with science. The science is used to make people feel better about their compromise.
I agree. My point was about how a ruling in 1973 that cites scientific research should be subject to review when the science changes. We are told ad-nauseum about how the 2nd amendment was about muskets and the authors had no idea that fully automatic weapons would ever exist so it needs to be revisited.
That blade cuts both ways.
I agree to an extent that it's a value judgement. However, people use science as their basis for that judgement. My viewpoint on it would likely change if the science behind it changed.
...and by science I mean universally acknowledged science. Not fringe doctors making their own assumptions based on a previously held belief.
I think you’re illustrating my point. At the moment of conception, those cells are destined to become a human being. It will not become anything else but a human being, so that is decided. Everything from then on is a matter of deciding where along the path you’re comfortable with intentionally ending that prospective human being’s life.
For you, it may be when it would otherwise be viable outside of the womb because then it is a human being. Or when the heart is beating or when it feels pain, etc. Regardless, it’s all dissemination of the fact that they conceived cells only have a destiny as a human being and will most likely progress to that condition if there is no external action taken.
Support abortion or don’t, at least let’s be honest about it and not disseminate on some stage in development when it “becomes a human being.” You’re eliminating a potential life, many times without any impartial consideration from parents or (ugh) government and almost always without anyone advocating on the side of the potential life. I think I agree with some of the things that EU nations have enacted that make it more deliberate than a decision between you and your doctor.
Respecting existing rulings is #1 according to the administration. The US media is trying to say it's otherwise, but no, sorry, Sotomayor-type logic doesn't fly with me.
As far as Roe v. Wade, I trust women to the right thing more than the government.
As far as Roe v. Wade, I trust women to the right thing more than the government.
The problem with SCOTUS is that they have generally OVER respected prior rulings for about the last century. Case law shouldnt be valued more than constitutional law. Its why the 9th and 10th amendments may as well be taken out of the bill or rights, the justices use prior rulings against the states and individuals as justification for further expanding the power of the federal government.
If you follow the "you're eliminating a potential life" to it's logical conclusion, you'll see the fallacy with it.
Every sperm is a potential life. Yet masturbation is not considered homicide.
Every egg is a potential life. Yet every unfertilized egg is not considered homicide.
Why don't we charge women that miscarry with unintentional manslaughter? If you want to punish someone for abortion, you need to punish them for unintentional acts too. If it doesn't make sense to punish a woman for miscarrying, then it doesn't make sense to punish a woman for an abortion either.
You anti-choicers, that want big government to step in and tell people how to live their lives are hypocrites. That's not freedom.
Answer this; there's a new born baby stuck in a burning house. Next door, there's a tube with 2 fertilized eggs in a burning house. You only have time to save one. Which do you choose?
Do we need to go back to Sex Ed 101 to teach you how a sperm and egg work and what a human child fetus is? Good God.
You guys will do anything to convince yourselves that you are in fact not slaughtering an innocent human life.
Question: can you define the chances that a sperm on its own develops into a human child?
Look, if we are going to start claiming that all ejaculate that doesn't produce life should be a crime, then Barrister is getting the death penalty and your moms chin is an accomplice.
I can only assume you are either being a provocateur or seriously stretching the limits to which a pro-abortion mindset has to go to justify killing a person. Either way, its boring
The unborn victims of violence act defines an unborn child as a homo-sapien (I.E. a person for those on the left). 38 states have laws in place that bring homicide charges on someone who willfully commits an act of violence and an unborn child dies from that act.
Based on the logic of the previous poster, this should not be the case at all. I should be able to punch a pregnant woman so hard that her baby dies and not be charged with murder.
And somehow, I'm the extremist here.
Based on the logic of the previous poster, this should not be the case at all. I should be able to punch a pregnant woman so hard that her baby dies and not be charged with murder.
And somehow, I'm the extremist here.
Context matters.
If I rape you and take your semen for my own insidious plans, I'm a thief of your special boys and a rapist. However, if you go to a prostitute and she milks you of your gooey goodness, she provided a service.
Consent makes all the difference. Maybe you didn't want to give up your man juice. Maybe you were saving it. I robbed you of that.
However, if you CHOOSE to let someone take care of it for you, it's groovy.
It's not body.
You compared a fetus (46 chromosomes) to a sperm or egg (23 chromosomes). Additionally, no individual sperm or egg has ever produced human life, while embryos have a pretty good track record for doing so.
Thats a straw man. Take a simpler or more ridiculous version of your opponents argument and use that in place of the one that you cant refute.
Nope. That's logic. So you argue a fetus has more rights because it has more chromosomes. That's literally your argument.
Nope. My argument is that a fetus is a person and has nearly zero chance of becoming anything other than a person. You are claiming that the person in question isnt a person because if a 3rd party makes the decision willfully to kill it that it isnt a person.
I'm saying what happens to cells in your body is none of my ****ing business.
Don't tread on me.
Don't tread on me.
Answer my original question.
Do you save the new born baby or the 2 fertilize eggs?
This should be easy for you unless you're morally disingenuous.
Do you save the new born baby or the 2 fertilize eggs?
This should be easy for you unless you're morally disingenuous.
Again, I trust women more than the government.
Abortion does not have the same 'breakdown of civil order' as murder.
Case closed.
People need stop arguing for a law when it is not required by civil order.
This is about civil liberties, and not letting people force the government with guns to decide for others.
Abortion does not have the same 'breakdown of civil order' as murder.
Case closed.
People need stop arguing for a law when it is not required by civil order.
This is about civil liberties, and not letting people force the government with guns to decide for others.
You’re the brain child who made the assumption that a sperm on its own can yield a human. Nothing you’ve said yet is remotely intelligent of scientifically sound.
This is a classic case pf moving the goal posts.
They can't win the basic argument, so they try to change the rules and hope you don't realize.
"But it has the potential to become a human!!"
Bullshit, flag on the play. Moving the goal post. We're not debating what it could become. We're debating what it IS.
Which is why i suggested if you go to that extreme, why stop there? Sperm is alive and has the potential to transform into a human. Not the same statistical chance as a sperm that found an egg, but still, a life is a life, right?
The same reason you don't hold a funeral every time you masturbate is the same reason I don't assign a social security number to your zygote.
They can't win the basic argument, so they try to change the rules and hope you don't realize.
"But it has the potential to become a human!!"
Bullshit, flag on the play. Moving the goal post. We're not debating what it could become. We're debating what it IS.
Which is why i suggested if you go to that extreme, why stop there? Sperm is alive and has the potential to transform into a human. Not the same statistical chance as a sperm that found an egg, but still, a life is a life, right?
The same reason you don't hold a funeral every time you masturbate is the same reason I don't assign a social security number to your zygote.
Holy crap. This is the dumbest thing I have read on this board and that says sooooo much
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a straw man.
Do not engage. It's fake news designed to distract.
Sperm that does not come into contact with an egg has a zero percent chance of becoming a human being. The chance remains at zero until it encounters a viable human egg where, if fertilization occurs, the sperm’s “life” ends and the components that were once a sperm joint with the components inside the egg to become a human. The sperm itself will never become a human ever.
The fetus is the prenatal form of the human being and, unless killed by medical incident or on purpose, will grow up to be a human being.
Refer to previous statement about moving goal posts. You just did it again. Arguing about what something COULD become and not what it IS. What it could become is irrelevant. And lol at the suicidal sperm, or the murderous egg ending the sperms life!
The guy who is trying to rationalize abortion comparing it to masturbation is moving the goal posts.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: Pro-Wrestling Stuff (WWE DRAFT CONTINUES)- Latest: FormerlyKnightInAtlanta
-
