Roe v. Wade - has it's time come?

[EllieTalbot]

Roe v. Wade - has its time come?

Now that SCOTUS is likely to get another pro-life justice (or not - who knows?), all the pundits say that it's not out of the realm of possibility that Roe v. Wade will be challenged. I honestly doubt it will happen, but if it does we'll all have to reassert where we stand on the issue.

I happen to think that everyone should take the opportunity to reassess where they stand.

I'm in favor of legal abortion, but wouldn't be sorry to see Roe V. Wade struck down, and here's why:

The case was made on the pretext that the illegality of abortion was a violation of a woman's private right to choose what to do with her body. That's a false pretext, because it ignores the real question, which is whether or not abortion is the murder of another human being with its own rights. Roe v. Wade was built on a cowardly avoidance of that question.

Not that it's not a nasty question. It's fraught with all kinds of complications, but the American public should, IMHO, grow a pair and deal with it. If Roe V. Wade is struck down, keeping abortion legal must be built on a consensus decision (if not federally, then at least on state levels) of exactly when a human embryo/fetus is officially granted status as a being with rights. That argument will have to eschew "feelings" - be it the indignant feelings of a woman who insists that it's all about her desires, or evangelicals who passionately feel that a microscopic pile of stem cells is a human being with rights - in favor of evidence-based reasoning. Is that even possible? Maybe. I'd certainly like to see it tried. It would be so much better if the whole stupid idea of "right to choose" is taken out of it. It's about having the moral and intellectual courage to dare to define when human status begins.

BTW, I'm aware that states already have varying cut-offs for abortion, but nothing in those statutes acknowledges that the human rights of a fetus are being taken into consideration. It's an unspoken given.

It should be spoken.

What do you think?

Opening Cans in the Orange County,
Ellie

 

[bestone4ever]

It's a shame it was enacted before you were hatched. We would have been better off if you were just a whore's walk of shame instead of here with us.

 

[nowisthetime]

It's a shame it was enacted before you were hatched. We would have been better off if you were just a whore's walk of shame instead of here with us.

https://media.giphy.com/media/26AHvF2p5pridaSf6/giphy.gif

 

[EllieTalbot]

It's a shame it was enacted before you were hatched. We would have been better off if you were just a whore's walk of shame instead of here with us.

So you wish I was dead. Noted.

Says more about you than me.


Giggling in the Guggenheim,
Ellie

 

[OldJourno]

It's a shame it was enacted before you were hatched. We would have been better off if you were just a whore's walk of shame instead of here with us.

Are you this nasty in real life, or is it just too hard for you to respond in a coherent fashion to positions you disagree with?

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's a shame it was enacted before you were hatched. We would have been better off if you were just a whore's walk of shame instead of here with us.

Don't you mean after?

If Roe v Wade happened before, it's mom would have been a whore's walk of shame.

And enacted?

When did the SCOTUS start enacting anything???

Guess you don't know how courts work either.

And not shocking....guess who didn't notice that because high school drop out.

https://media.giphy.com/media/26AHvF2p5pridaSf6/giphy.gif

 

[nowisthetime]

By the way, Roe Vs Wade is not likely to be tampered, twit. Neither is gay marriage.

However, the cretins will make sure to limit abortion rights (make it harder), civil rights, voting rights, and environmental protections.


Because that's what rightists do best, bring hell on to Earth.

Progressives advance human rights, rightists TRAMPLE on them.

 

[EllieTalbot]

I can only think of a meme.

Oh, look. A silly person who didn't put me on ignore even after loudly proclaiming they had.

Hehehe. Typical. FYP, btw.

So.... anyone got any real thoughts on the subject? Or are responses going to continue to be monopolized by the dogmatically brainless and easily offended?

Patient in Pamona,
Ellie

 

[BotanyBoy]

By the way, Roe Vs Wade is not likely to be tampered, twit.

However, the cretins will make sure to limit abortion rights

No such thing as abortion rights.

civil rights,

Those are things YOU and the progressives seek to destroy.

Progressives advance human rights

LOL!!!!! Now that's some funny shit.

 

[Stain_mAnn]

Now that SCOTUS is likely to get another pro-life justice (or not - who knows?), all the pundits say that it's not out of the realm of possibility that Roe v. Wade will be challenged. I honestly doubt it will happen, but if it does we'll all have to reassert where we stand on the issue.

I happen to think that everyone should take the opportunity to reassess where they stand.

I'm in favor of legal abortion, but wouldn't be sorry to see Roe V. Wade struck down, and here's why:

The case was made on the pretext that the illegality of abortion was a violation of a woman's private right to choose what to do with her body. That's a false pretext, because it ignores the real question, which is whether or not abortion is the murder of another human being with its own rights. Roe v. Wade was built on a cowardly avoidance of that question.

Not that it's not a nasty question. It's fraught with all kinds of complications, but the American public should, IMHO, grow a pair and deal with it. If Roe V. Wade is struck down, keeping abortion legal must be built on a consensus decision (if not federally, then at least on state levels) of exactly when a human embryo/fetus is officially granted status as a being with rights. That argument will have to eschew "feelings" - be it the indignant feelings of a woman who insists that it's all about her desires, or evangelicals who passionately feel that a microscopic pile of stem cells is a human being with rights - in favor of evidence-based reasoning. Is that even possible? Maybe. I'd certainly like to see it tried. It would be so much better if the whole stupid idea of "right to choose" is taken out of it. It's about having the moral and intellectual courage to dare to define when human status begins.

BTW, I'm aware that states already have varying cut-offs for abortion, but nothing in those statutes acknowledges that the human rights of a fetus are being taken into consideration. It's an unspoken given.

It should be spoken.

What do you think?

Opening Cans in the Orange County,
Ellie

A human being is not tethered internally to a host.

 

[Rightguide]

Now that SCOTUS is likely to get another pro-life justice (or not - who knows?), all the pundits say that it's not out of the realm of possibility that Roe v. Wade will be challenged. I honestly doubt it will happen, but if it does we'll all have to reassert where we stand on the issue.

I happen to think that everyone should take the opportunity to reassess where they stand.

I'm in favor of legal abortion, but wouldn't be sorry to see Roe V. Wade struck down, and here's why:

The case was made on the pretext that the illegality of abortion was a violation of a woman's private right to choose what to do with her body. That's a false pretext, because it ignores the real question, which is whether or not abortion is the murder of another human being with its own rights. Roe v. Wade was built on a cowardly avoidance of that question.

Not that it's not a nasty question. It's fraught with all kinds of complications, but the American public should, IMHO, grow a pair and deal with it. If Roe V. Wade is struck down, keeping abortion legal must be built on a consensus decision (if not federally, then at least on state levels) of exactly when a human embryo/fetus is officially granted status as a being with rights. That argument will have to eschew "feelings" - be it the indignant feelings of a woman who insists that it's all about her desires, or evangelicals who passionately feel that a microscopic pile of stem cells is a human being with rights - in favor of evidence-based reasoning. Is that even possible? Maybe. I'd certainly like to see it tried. It would be so much better if the whole stupid idea of "right to choose" is taken out of it. It's about having the moral and intellectual courage to dare to define when human status begins.

BTW, I'm aware that states already have varying cut-offs for abortion, but nothing in those statutes acknowledges that the human rights of a fetus are being taken into consideration. It's an unspoken given.

It should be spoken.

What do you think?

Opening Cans in the Orange County,
Ellie

It was never in the Constitution, if it goes down abortion will still remain in most states.

 

[adrina]

I think that while you have a point, the reality is that most people are incapable of having a rational discussion about abortion. The usual methods are to try to make it about morality or money when in reality it is about neither. It is about control. And of course our easy distrust of women as a culture.

I think your idea is making good the enemy of perfect. And in the meantime women will die from lack of legal access to a safe medical procedure.

Additionally, I think you will find that many of our laws are based around imperfect compromises that while they do not serve the issue perfectly work well on a pragmatic level.

 

[nowisthetime]

Looks like captain save a ho- the whiny Asian thugrat came flying into this thread.


As expected


http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/11/1826/1600/savaho.0.jpg


SWOOOOOOP!

 

[bestone4ever]

So you wish I was dead. Noted.

Says more about you than me.


Giggling in the Guggenheim,
Ellie

Comprehension isn't your strong suit, eh? I wished you were never born, not wished you dead.

Are you this nasty in real life, or is it just too hard for you to respond in a coherent fashion to positions you disagree with?

Did you respond in a coherent way to the OP or did you attack me- someone who didn't rattle your chain?

 

[EllieTalbot]

A human being is not tethered internally to a host.

So does that mean you're in favor of partial-birth abortions?

And what does "tethering" entail? A human infant, toddler, etc., can't survive without a caretaker.

I've actually run across people who think that children too young to see after their own basic needs can be cast aside, even killed, if their needs are interfering with the will of the one who gave birth to them.

I won't ascribe such extremes to you, but these are the questions people need to tackle if they're going to confront the concept of human rights honestly in the context of abortion.

Confrontational in Connecticut,
Ellie

 

[EllieTalbot]

Comprehension isn't your strong suit, eh? I wished you were never born, not wished you dead.

There's no point in illustrating the GIANT irony in that cowardly bit of back-pedaling vs. what you first posted. It would sail so far over your head, all you'd be able to see is the contrails.

Vacuumed in Vermont,
Ellie

 

[bestone4ever]

There's no point in illustrating the GIANT irony in that cowardly bit of back-pedaling vs. what you first posted. It would sail so far over your head, all you'd be able to see is the contrails.

Vacuumed in Vermont,
Ellie

Your comprehension problems don't equate to me back peddling, retard.

 

[HAL_9000]

"Full-birth abortions" would be a good name for a punk band.

 

[HisArpy]

It was never in the Constitution, if it goes down abortion will still remain in most states.

This is a false assertion. In the 9th Amendment the Constitution explicitly says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Under this Amendment, there are Rights not expressly delineated in the Bill of Rights but which are still Rights of the people.

Further, under the 4th Amendment, you have a right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects.

When you combine those 2 Amendments, you can easily see that one has a Right to Privacy. And, while not enumerated in the writing of the Constitution as such a Right, that doesn't mean the Right is not "in" the Constitution. Just that it's not expressly set forth.

Any argument which says otherwise fails because it does not consider the totality of the Bill of Rights, nor its purpose. The Constitution doesn't GRANT Rights, it only protects them. The Right to Privacy is a Right that is protected under the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere.

 

[EllieTalbot]

Your comprehension problems don't equate to me back peddling, retard.

Yikes. You don't just enjoy sticking your foot in your mouth. You've got to gnaw away and savor the toe jam.

Ahem. **whispers** Relying on spell-check isn't a good idea when dealing with homophones. You need to know what words actually mean. You're welcome, jerk.

Sorry for you in Saginaw,
Ellie

 

[Wrong Element]

Like I said in one of the other threads, I think it's "possible" Roberts will stand in the way of a complete overturn of Roe, and will simply keep doing what he's been doing: allowing the Court to chip away at it without the dramatic headlines.

His opinion that upheld Obamacare was a little strange, but it was obvious he wanted to avoid the perception that a Republican Court was going after the primary domestic achievement of a Democratic president. And if you're a partisan Republican, as Roberts surely is, leaving Obamacare out there to keep the base motivated with anger wasn't a half-bad outcome (as I suspect a lot of Republicans secretly believe, just like they're secretly worried about a world where the voters most motivated on the abortion issue come from the pro-choice side).

I just have my doubts Roberts is going to want to overturn Roe on a 5-4 vote. The legitimacy of the Court is already at an alltime low.

Besides, Roe doesn't touch on the things Roberts cares about the most: upholding the interests of the wealthy, and sticking it to black people. Abortion? I doubt he thinks about it much.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Okay Ellie, let's have a discussion.

Once again, I'll trot out my Amicus Memorial Abortion Challenge™.

There are actually six separate arguments that comprise the "Is Abortion Moral" debate:

1. Is it alive?
2. Is it human?
3. Is it a person?
4. Is it physically independent?
5. Does it have human rights?
6. Is abortion murder?

Let's see if we can find some common ground here.

1. Is it alive? My answer is yes.

2. Is it human? Again, I'll answer yes.

3. Is it a person? No, it's a "potential person", which is both separate and distinct from a "person", inasmuch as an acorn is distinct from an oak tree.

4. Is it physically independent? Absolutely not. A fetus is dependent upon another human being for nutrients and oxygen. It's worth noting that many of the anti-abortion folks raise the false equivalency that because a newborn infant is also dependent upon another for nutrients and oxygen, a fetus should be considered the functional equivalent of a newborn. This shows an inability to distinguish between the concepts of "physical independence" and "social independence". Social independence is where a child depends on society to feed, clothe and nuture him/her. Physical independence, on the other hand, is when something depends on the physical body of another for its continued existence. This seems to be a point you seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

5. Does it have human rights? A qualified yes. A human fetus has rights to the extent that the do not infringe upon the rights of another, in this case the woman carrying the fetus. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body, because one will automatically have veto power over the other, and by definition this precludes "equal rights".

6. Is abortion murder? No. It's only murder when it's an independent person. Infants, even premature infants, are considered "independent" of their mother and are accorded full human rights.

Your move, Eleanor.

 

[bestone4ever]

Yikes. You don't just enjoy sticking your foot in your mouth. You've got to gnaw away and savor the toe jam.

Ahem. **whispers** Relying on spell-check isn't a good idea when dealing with homophones. You need to know that words actually mean. You're welcome, jerk.

Sorry for you in Saginaw,
Ellie

LOL! Ya got me. Whatever shall I do? I know! Not wish you dead again!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This is a false assertion. In the 9th Amendment the Constitution explicitly says:



Under this Amendment, there are Rights not expressly delineated in the Bill of Rights but which are still Rights of the people.

Further, under the 4th Amendment, you have a right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects.

When you combine those 2 Amendments, you can easily see that one has a Right to Privacy. And, while not enumerated in the writing of the Constitution as such a Right, that doesn't mean the Right is not "in" the Constitution. Just that it's not expressly set forth.

Any argument which says otherwise fails because it does not consider the totality of the Bill of Rights, nor its purpose. The Constitution doesn't GRANT Rights, it only protects them. The Right to Privacy is a Right that is protected under the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere.

Even without the 9th Amendment, the 4th Amendment directly infers a right to privacy. On what other basis would you have a right to "be secure"? I've always wondered why people argued about the obvious.

 

[HisArpy]

Even without the 9th Amendment, the 4th Amendment directly infers a right to privacy. On what other basis would you have a right to "be secure"? I've always wondered why people argued about the obvious.

The problem is that Roe was poorly written. Somehow they decided that the 14th Amendment is the source of the Right to Privacy. As I've said before, I believe that the reference to the 14th Amendment is a typo that no one has bothered to correct, then they doubled down on the error.

The 4th doesn't enumerate a Right to Privacy explicitly. However, using the 9th, we can easily see that, although not explicitly stated, the 4th does contain a right of "security in one's person including one's reproductive organs". Or, IOW, a Right to Privacy.