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.
Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Moderator: Moderators
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #91You're hair splitting. That document / ruling definitely would allow states to control women's reproductive and health choices.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 10:30 pmAlito'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.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 9:55 pmThat, and the trying to tell the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.historia wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 8:17 pmYes, that was the only portion of your comment that was accurate.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 4:31 pmAlito is an old guy.historia wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 1:42 pmI take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.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.
You seem to wanna avoid considering that bit.
To propose otherwise is folly.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3061
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3305 times
- Been thanked: 2030 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #92I 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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #93Allowing 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.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:43 pmYou're hair splitting. That document / ruling definitely would allow states to control women's reproductive and health choices.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.
To propose otherwise is folly.
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
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9872
- 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 #94Texas 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.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.
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #96If you read Jose Fly's twitter reference, then I think it will show that the point behind my post is more than justified.Bust Nak wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 12:02 pmTexas 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.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.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9389
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #97I assume you are pro choice then? If not, we would only have more of what you find harmful/costly to society.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 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
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
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #98I'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 pmI assume you are pro choice then? If not, we would only have more of what you find harmful/costly to society.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 don't like the idea of abortions, but I do recongnize the need for the availability.
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:..
- PBS“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.”
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
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #99There's already laws on the books in several states that anticipate this 'paper ruling'.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 10:27 amAllowing 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.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:43 pmYou're hair splitting. That document / ruling definitely would allow states to control women's reproductive and health choices.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.
To propose otherwise is folly.
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 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
-Punkinhead Martin
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3061
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3305 times
- Been thanked: 2030 times
Re: Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
Post #100That's roughly five months post-partum. I suspect that fifth trimester abortions will remain illegal no matter what.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:19 pmI'm against abortion when the fetus reaches a point of having some level of consciousness.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.