Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 02:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Not to get off topic here, but you shaking hands with your sister the day she gave birth just seems like an odd interaction.  Anyways, you perceive that she only had 10 fingers and one nose, doesn't make it so.

I was wishing her good luck before she went to the hospital and didn't want to hug her just to avoid her having to lean down and potentially falling or not being able to get back up.

How's that odd?

(05-04-2022, 02:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: A pregnant woman does, yes,

Could you show me any evidence of that?

For as long as I can remember, and I've never heard anyone dispute this and it's what I learned in grade school, high school, and college, a person only has one set of DNA and it's unique and it will never be duplicated.

(05-04-2022, 02:50 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Where do all those baby's body parts reside?

You saying that they're the baby's parts prove that it's not the woman's body.

[CJD]

(05-04-2022, 02:59 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You saying that they're the baby's parts prove that it's not the woman's body.

I edited my response to make my answer more clear, but there's never, ever, been a question about whether the baby is a separate entity from the mother.

You're clearly misinterpreting what the phrase, "my body, my choice" means.

What I can't figure out is if you are intentionally misinterpreting it, or if it's unintentional.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 02:59 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I was wishing her good luck before she went to the hospital and didn't want to hug her just to avoid her having to lean down and potentially falling or not being able to get back up.

How's that odd?

Could you show me any evidence of that?

For as long as I can remember, and I've never heard anyone dispute this and it's what I learned in grade school, high school, and college, a person only has one set of DNA and it's unique and it will never be duplicated.

You saying that they're the baby's parts prove that it's not the woman's body.

Ok, this is getting a bit tiresome, you keep asking questions when you really want to make statements so let's drop the charade.  Why don't you just tell me how many people you think a pregnant woman is and why.

Also, is there any instance in which you think abortion is justified and acceptable or are you one of those "never ever" types?  I honestly can't recall.

[Au165]

(05-04-2022, 01:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This all reads like pure opinion, especially as you are resting your entire argument on your belief that "this was potentially the most overtly political ruling to overturn settled law by SCOTUS of any of the 232".  You can certainly have the opinion, but it's just that.  Although I will say that claiming this ruling is worse than any of the other 232, by far, is a very in the now thing to say and think.  After all, "our democracy is under threat" and the next election will be the "most important in our lifetime."

You'll please forgive me if I don't indulge in the hyperbole and instead deal with facts.

Correct, this is subjective as opposed to claiming something is objective and basing it in opinion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2022, 03:09 PM)Au165 Wrote: Correct, this is subjective as opposed to claiming something is objective and basing it in opinion.

Sarcasm and lack of counter point noted. 

[Au165]

(05-04-2022, 03:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sarcasm and lack of counter point noted. 

That should be the subtitle of this thread, and bored, honestly. 

[*Nately120*]

Has anyone said that outlawing abortion now is a slap in the face to all the potential people who have already been aborted?

[basballguy]

(05-04-2022, 03:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Has anyone said that outlawing abortion now is a slap in the face to all the potential people who have already been aborted?

Reminds me of a David Cross skit where he talks about people being offended on behalf of aborted babies and asks if they too were aborted.  

That aside...I think you understand striking down Roe v Wade is not the same thing as outlawing abortion...so I'm not sure why you'd say that.  

[Au165]

One thing this whole issue has given rise to is states trying to regulate the actions of their residents while in other states. I think that actually raises a really fascinating constitutional question in itself about residency versus jurisdiction. The result of the Texas bill and others has been states like CT who have done the inverse and essentially allowed people to sue in CT for any damages or lawsuits they incur from other states as it relates to the facilitation of an abortion. This is all of course the result of allowing a wholly unsustainable enforcement mechanism in Texas to exist, which could potentially be the largest issue out of this whole saga as wild as it sounds because this mechanism will be used for other things as we go.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 03:27 PM)basballguy Wrote: Reminds me of a David Cross skit where he talks about people being offended on behalf of aborted babies and asks if they too were aborted.  

That aside...I think you understand striking down Roe v Wade is not the same thing as outlawing abortion...so I'm not sure why you'd say that.  

Well, without being a doomsayer I have to say that I may be able to see the writing on the wall.  Right now we have a SC that is moving forward with something 20% of people supposedly want them to move forward with.  The answer to that is to get out and vote, yet democrats control the house and senate and the election that led to the appointment of the 3 SC justices who swung the court to enable them to do this saw the democrat candidate pull in nearly 3 million more votes than the republican who won.

I see a governmental body that is openly (well, only openly because it was leaked) defying the will of the people, and yet there doesn't seem to be anything the people can do in response to halt it or change things.  Is it pure political chicken little-ing to assume this is merely the first step in a process?  Just seems like republicans are able to get stuff done despite having a minority of support for it, and people are eagerly fighting to make the field even more slanted towards one side.

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 03:02 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I edited my response to make my answer more clear, but there's never, ever, been a question about whether the baby is a separate entity from the mother.

You're clearly misinterpreting what the phrase, "my body, my choice" means.

What I can't figure out is if you are intentionally misinterpreting it, or if it's unintentional.

Then explain it to me because it seems pretty obvious to me.

(05-04-2022, 03:03 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok, this is getting a bit tiresome, you keep asking questions when you really want to make statements so let's drop the charade.  Why don't you just tell me how many people you think a pregnant woman is and why.

Also, is there any instance in which you think abortion is justified and acceptable or are you one of those "never ever" types?  I honestly can't recall.

Ok.

A woman's doesn't have two sets of DNA, so it's not her body. 

There's my statement. Please try and counter it.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 03:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A woman's doesn't have two sets of DNA, so it's not her body. 

There's my statement. Please try and counter it.

Ok fair enough, so I asked if you ever approve of abortion in any situation and you didn't answer it. 

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 03:40 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok fair enough, so I asked if you ever approve of abortion in any situation and you didn't answer it. 

That's not what this thread is about. 

If you'd like to ask that question, start a new thread.

This thread is about abortion being legal on demand for any reason.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 03:46 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That's not what this thread is about. 

If you'd like to ask that question, start a new thread.

This thread is about abortion being legal on demand for any reason.

Come on, you didn't start a whole new thread to ask how many noses a woman has.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-04-2022, 03:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, without being a doomsayer I have to say that I may be able to see the writing on the wall.  Right now we have a SC that is moving forward with something 20% of people supposedly want them to move forward with.  The answer to that is to get out and vote, yet democrats control the house and senate and the election that led to the appointment of the 3 SC justices who swung the court to enable them to do this saw the democrat candidate pull in nearly 3 million more votes than the republican who won.

I see a governmental body that is openly (well, only openly because it was leaked) defying the will of the people, and yet there doesn't seem to be anything the people can do in response to halt it or change things.  Is it pure political chicken little-ing to assume this is merely the first step in a process?  Just seems like republicans are able to get stuff done despite having a minority of support for it, and people are eagerly fighting to make the field even more slanted towards one side.

Just for some historical perspective, the SCOTUS could have been, and likely was, defying the will of the people with the original Roe ruling and Brown v. Board of Education, and the same sex marriage decision, just to name a few.  The job of the SCOTUS, ostensibly, is to apply the constitution and determine the validity of a law, action, etc. before it.  It's job is absolutely not to do the will of the people as there have been many times throughout history, in every nation, where the will of the people was abhorrent.

Now, whether you think that they are fulfilling that purpose properly or not is a different matter entirely.

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 03:49 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Come on, you didn't start a whole new thread to ask how many noses a woman has.

That was relevant to the discussion we are having.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 03:52 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: That was relevant to the discussion we are having.

I'm not starting a new thread to ask you personally if you ever think abortion is justified.

[BFritz21]

(05-04-2022, 03:53 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not starting a new thread to ask you personally if you ever think abortion is justified.

I'll answer as long as you acknowledge that a woman doesn't have two sets of DNA, so it's not her body because, let's be honest, you asked that question to try and avoid admitting that a woman doesn't have two sets of DNA so it's not her body.

[*Nately120*]

(05-04-2022, 03:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just for some historical perspective, the SCOTUS could have been, and likely was, defying the will of the people with the original Roe ruling and Brown v. Board of Education, and the same sex marriage decision, just to name a few.  The job of the SCOTUS, ostensibly, is to apply the constitution and determine the validity of a law, action, etc. before it.  It's job is absolutely not to do the will of the people as there have been many times throughout history, in every nation, where the will of the people was abhorrent.

Now, whether you think that they are fulfilling that purpose properly or not is a different matter entirely.

Fair enough, but why are they appointed by presidents that we vote for?  Or is this just another area where our system was never meant to be this bi-partisan and this powerful?

The last refuge of the neo con who didn't like Trump was that he was going to appoint conservative SC justices who would, supposedly, rule in a conservative manner.  

My view on all this is more about how twisted and chaotic the viewpoint of the American populace is.  We complain about how divided we are, and yet one thing where some 80% agree is being overturned...just seems like another wacky day in the life, I suppose. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-04-2022, 03:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, without being a doomsayer I have to say that I may be able to see the writing on the wall.  Right now we have a SC that is moving forward with something 20% of people supposedly want them to move forward with.  The answer to that is to get out and vote, yet democrats control the house and senate and the election that led to the appointment of the 3 SC justices who swung the court to enable them to do this saw the democrat candidate pull in nearly 3 million more votes than the republican who won.

I see a governmental body that is openly (well, only openly because it was leaked) defying the will of the people, and yet there doesn't seem to be anything the people can do in response to halt it or change things.  Is it pure political chicken little-ing to assume this is merely the first step in a process?  Just seems like republicans are able to get stuff done despite having a minority of support for it, and people are eagerly fighting to make the field even more slanted towards one side.

It's funny we're having this discussion. I am currently reading over someone's master's thesis on "Satisfaction With Democracy" that they sent me.

In all seriousness, our system is broken and, IMHO, it is in large part because we idolize the Constitution and refuse to update the foundations of our government. Our founders expected a new Constitution every 10-20 years. We haven't even seen an amendment in 30 (as of this coming Saturday). Our country, people, and government are trying to operate in a 21st century world with an 18th century document. It was ahead of its time then, but it is outdated now. The weaknesses have been exposed and they are being exploited by those in power to perpetuate their power for themselves.