Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
historia
Prodigy
Posts: 2603
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
Has thanked: 221 times
Been thanked: 320 times

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #1

Post by historia »

More precisely: Should the current Supreme Court precedent on abortion -- first established by Roe v. Wade, but later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- be overturned?

My question here is not so much whether abortion should be legal or not, since overturning Roe would not, in itself, make abortion illegal, with several states having laws that explicitly allow for abortions.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #91

Post by JoeyKnothead »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:30 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 9:55 pm
historia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:17 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 4:31 pm
historia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:42 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 5:08 pm
An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.
I take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.
Alito is an old guy.
Yes, that was the only portion of your comment that was accurate.
That, and the trying to tell the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

You seem to wanna avoid considering that bit.
Alito's opinion, even if ruled in favor of by a majority of the court, would not ban abortions. You're just repeating a slogan Joey. It doesn't appear that you have given ALito's opinion any serious thought.
You're hair splitting. That document / ruling definitely would allow states to control women's reproductive and health choices.

To propose otherwise is folly.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #92

Post by Difflugia »

historia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:51 pmRight, so, in other words, your concerns above about what cases the Court should or should not be hearing are driven purely by your own personal political preferences.
I suppose, if you consider the protection of other rights like the freedom of speech and equal protection before the law to be "purely [my] own political preferences" as well.
historia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:51 pmIn contrast, Alito's argument would be roughly the same regardless of which way Roe had been decided.
Alito's argument would be the same, but I have little reason to think Alito and the current Court would have agreed to hear the case if it had been decided the other way.
historia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:51 pmIt's really a point about process rather than politics: the regulation of abortion is properly the responsibility of the Legislature not the Court.
If denial of certiorari required arguments based on merits of the cases rather than simple discretion, I'd agree with you. The discretion of the court, however, has no such constraint. There's evidence that Supreme Court justices make certiorari decisions based at least in part on ideological and political factors, even if the final decisions in accepted cases are based on correct (or at least consistent) application of law.

To the extent that the discretionary judgement is ideological, that discretion should be for good rather than evil. There is sufficient evidence to the point of certainty that if Roe is overturned, a number of state and local legislatures will remove access to abortion. This alone should be enough for the Court to apply that discretion in a way that allows the country time to move toward legislating broader civil protections before stripping de jure constitutional protections, even if those protections were erroneously granted in the first place.
historia wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:51 pmIt seems to me, then, that your criticism of the Court above is misplaced. We may not all agree on what laws we want to see enacted (or reviewed), but we should all agree on the role and responsibility of the various branches of our government. And, to that end, as tough as some may find it, see this current decision, should it come about, as a welcome restoration of the constitutional order.
If I saw evidence that the current Court were also regularly reversing past rulings that erroneously restricted civil rights and protections, I would agree that the Court were moving toward restoring a "constitutional order." I don't.

The correct course is for the Court to be fair in the ultimate application of its power. Since it isn't so now, my position is that it's less wrong to uphold civil protections than to erode them.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #93

Post by AgnosticBoy »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:43 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:30 pm Alito's opinion, even if ruled in favor of by a majority of the court, would not ban abortions. You're just repeating a slogan Joey. It doesn't appear that you have given ALito's opinion any serious thought.
You're hair splitting. That document / ruling definitely would allow states to control women's reproductive and health choices.

To propose otherwise is folly.
Allowing states to decide on abortion does not equate to banning abortion. A lot of what you're saying is spin and fear mongering, mostly from the Left.

Has any state come out to say that they would ban abortion entirely? I think the Red states would make it harder to get but even then those wanting abortions can just go to another state.

If anything, if I were these Red states, I would working on ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which in turn would prevent abortions. They could do something like requiring birth control for all premarital sexual activity. That alone would cut a lot of abortion cases, and I think there's a valid argument to be made that bringing in kids outside of a commitment is harmful to society, and costly for the tax payers.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #94

Post by Bust Nak »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:27 am I think the Red states would make it harder to get but even then those wanting abortions can just go to another state.
Texas SB 8 already does that. You say that like having to visit a Blue state for an abortion isn't a catastrophe alarming enough to justify the so called "spin and fear mongering" from the left.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #95

Post by Jose Fly »

Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #96

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:02 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:27 am I think the Red states would make it harder to get but even then those wanting abortions can just go to another state.
Texas SB 8 already does that. You say that like having to visit a Blue state for an abortion isn't a catastrophe alarming enough to justify the so called "spin and fear mongering" from the left.
If you read Jose Fly's twitter reference, then I think it will show that the point behind my post is more than justified.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #97

Post by Clownboat »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:27 am I think there's a valid argument to be made that bringing in kids outside of a commitment is harmful to society, and costly for the tax payers.
I assume you are pro choice then? If not, we would only have more of what you find harmful/costly to society.
I don't like the idea of abortions, but I do recongnize the need for the availability.

Why do people champion a cause that increases harm and cost to society? Woohoo for more harm and woohoo for more suffering! It's baffeling behavior to me.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 153 times
Contact:

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #98

Post by AgnosticBoy »

Clownboat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:20 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:27 am I think there's a valid argument to be made that bringing in kids outside of a commitment is harmful to society, and costly for the tax payers.
I assume you are pro choice then? If not, we would only have more of what you find harmful/costly to society.
I don't like the idea of abortions, but I do recongnize the need for the availability.
I'm pro-choice with conditions. I'm against abortion when the fetus reaches a point of having some level of consciousness. So I would oppose abortion after the first trimester. The only exception is if the pregnancy would cause a life-threatening problems for the mother.
Clownboat wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 2:20 pmWhy do people champion a cause that increases harm and cost to society? Woohoo for more harm and woohoo for more suffering! It's baffeling behavior to me.
If you're saying that abortions would also prevent harm (financial or otherwise) to society, then I can agree up to a point (refer to my conditional pro choice position). I'm sure conservatives would still sell birth control (or even abstinence) as a way of avoiding the societal harms that I brought up. They might dodge the fact that it also helps with avoiding abortions if they can not show that abortions are harmful. But to dodge that issue, their selling point regarding responsible sex (good choice in sex partner, commitment, birth control, etc) would have to work out so good (by preventing unwanted pregnancies) that they wouldn't even have to bring up abortion.

One thing that bothers me is this statement:..
“Abortion restrictions are racist,” said Cathy Torres, an organizing manager with Frontera Fund, a Texas organization that helps pay for abortions.
“They directly impact people of color, Black, brown, Indigenous people … people who are trying to make ends meet.”
- PBS

That's a different topic.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #99

Post by JoeyKnothead »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 10:27 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 11:43 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 10:30 pm Alito's opinion, even if ruled in favor of by a majority of the court, would not ban abortions. You're just repeating a slogan Joey. It doesn't appear that you have given ALito's opinion any serious thought.
You're hair splitting. That document / ruling definitely would allow states to control women's reproductive and health choices.

To propose otherwise is folly.
Allowing states to decide on abortion does not equate to banning abortion. A lot of what you're saying is spin and fear mongering, mostly from the Left.

Has any state come out to say that they would ban abortion entirely? I think the Red states would make it harder to get but even then those wanting abortions can just go to another state.

If anything, if I were these Red states, I would working on ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which in turn would prevent abortions. They could do something like requiring birth control for all premarital sexual activity. That alone would cut a lot of abortion cases, and I think there's a valid argument to be made that bringing in kids outside of a commitment is harmful to society, and costly for the tax payers.
There's already laws on the books in several states that anticipate this 'paper ruling'.

There's also talk of using federal legislation to ban abortions should this ruling come into effect.

To the charge of just using slogans or talking points, I say bull butter. That's just an attempt to denigrate and confuse the fact one ain't got em a counter argument. As well, if a 'talking point' is apt, well there we go.

So I'll conclude your accusation of slogans, or 'talking points' is merely your own talking point. And a not apt'n at that.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Post #100

Post by Difflugia »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:19 pmI'm against abortion when the fetus reaches a point of having some level of consciousness.
That's roughly five months post-partum. I suspect that fifth trimester abortions will remain illegal no matter what.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply